My take on the new proposal

Please excuse the length of time this post has taken. I've tried my best to step back, look at the situation objectively and get past the strong reactions the presentation engendered. Still, I could not jump right in and evaluate the entire new proposal. What I'm going to do is start in slowly with some points brought up during the meeting and work up to how the new proposal from Bisno effects the ideas I presented back in March.

I ask your patience and forbearance because there were several things said during the meeting, and afterwards, which are difficult and commenting on them is just about impossible to do without some of it sounding a bit aggressive. While I make comments about certain people, I want everyone to understand they are not personal attacks. I must, however, comment on their stated positions since they are part-and-parcel of the CAC process.

This will also be a longer post than I normally like to do. My apologies in advance.

• I need to start with Pat Nave. Mr. Nave is an intelligent man and in certain areas, he has my respect. However, Mr. Nave is an R-1 zealot and it is my belief that, in addition, he has an extreme personal dislike for Bisno. I am not defending Bisno. He is a developer and, by nature, aggressive and abrasive. Sometimes he is not a very likable fellow. However, Pat has allowed these things to cloud his intellect and judgment.

While every other critic of traffic numbers I've heard says that Bisno and LA DOT are using the wrong ITE numbers, Pat says the ITE tables are completely invalid and should be ignored. Jerry Gaines is wrong. Mr. Kim from the LA DOT is wrong. Gordon Teuber is wrong, etc., etc.. Everyone is wrong. This is arrogance taken to its limit.

The ITE tables are accurate and reliable because of the size of their database. Anyone who understands anything about statistics knows that the larger the database, the more reliable the numbers. Mr. Nave's position is completely at odds with every professional in the field, while he IS NOT a trained or certified traffic engineer.

I know Mr. Nave is a retired Port of Los Angeles attorney. This is another reason I fault his reasoning. During Pat Nave's tenure, the Port of Los Angeles has given us a legacy of horrible traffic, fatal air quality, and unrestrained expansion. This is hardly something on which to base your qualifications, or tout as something to be proud of. In my humble opinion, Pat Nave needs to go sit in the corner with his dunce cap on.

• The next people I have to comment on I will do together. Leah Marinkovich and Lucie Thorsen sat there at the CAC meeting passing the microphone back-and-forth between them, completely disregarding any courtesy for their boss Councilwoman Hahn, other CAC members, or members of the public. All they were interested in was making their own pre-determined opinions made known. Both of them had their minds made up before the first CAC meeting in contravention of Councilwoman Hahn's wish that the CAC evaluate the project and offer their recommendations. Filibustering is no way to conduct a committee which is supposed to come up with a plan.

They should join Pat sitting in the corner.

• Chuck Hart needs to correct his racist attitude, or resign from the CAC. There is no question that his comment about "We need more million dollar homes." was aimed directly at San Pedro's Hispanic and African-American communities. Like it or not, these two communities are an integral part of San Pedro's demographics. There is no room for this type of attitude on the CAC. Mr. Hart should not sit in the corner. He should be booted out into the hallway until he adjusts his attitude.

But furthermore, it is an unfortunate fact which I have not seen anyone have the guts to talk about until this point. But I, for one, have had enough. I have heard denigrating remarks about both of these communities from several members of the R-1 gang. It is unacceptable and intolerable. I was shocked into disbelief that in this day-and-age these type of attitudes and comments could still exist in a community as diverse as San Pedro. If need be, I will meet with the Councilwoman personally to verify what has been said and who said it.

The R-1 gang has recruited Ray Patricio to their cause. I don't care how old he is, or how well-liked he is in the community. Making a comment about a "Mexican seven-course lunch" is offensive and has no place being said in the CAC meetings. Someone needs to rein him in.

• Victor Griego needs to do his job. He is supposed to be a facilitator. He should facilitate. It's no wonder Bisno fired him. It's a bigger wonder he was reinstated.

• John Greenwood puts me in a quandary. While I originally had him pegged as a completely R-1 proponent, I have been pleasantly surprised by the thought and planning he has put into offering an alternate project plan. The thing I would like Mr. Greenwood to do is to forget about LAUSD. They ARE NOT part of the Ponte Vista project and not part of what the CAC was charged to do by the Councilwoman. Councilwoman Hahn opposes a school the size of which LAUSD has proposed. She has said she would support a 500-seat academy. Bisno has said he would accommodate a school of that size. Given these facts, they should now be left out of the equation. Besides, they have disappeared. No one has heard anything from them and it is my belief they have moved on.

Early on, Bisno made it clear that if LAUSD exercised eminent domain, the DEIR would be out-the-window and he would have to start from scratch again anyway. Including them does nothing except cloud the main issues which need to be dealt with.


¤ Okay, I guess I've upset a great many people by this point. But now I will also level some criticism against a Ponte Vista supporter.

• Joe Donato is a hot-tempered guy. While I personally agree with his position, I disagree with his not yielding the floor when his time to speak was up.

I don't know. I'm on the fence with Mr. Donato. Even the Bible references "righteous anger". Joe was upset with the constant heckling during the entire meeting by members of the R-1 gang. He also voiced the opinion that the future of San Pedro should be decided by San Pedrans. Still I guess I would have to say that old trite phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

I would have to point out to Mr. Donato that Councilwoman Hahn chose the CAC members from her district, not just San Pedro. This was a political decision. My opinion is that she did not need to include neighboring communities because this is the job of the Planning Department. Nevertheless, this is what she did. It is my belief she will make a decision on what type of project to support based on what is best for San Pedro and the surrounding communities. I believe her to be an intelligent, rational person, with integrity who, in the final analysis, will do what is right.

• R-1 proponents versus Ponte Vista supporters - that difference was obvious to everyone. Why R-1 supporters feel they have the right to be loud, rude, and shrill, I cannot understand. It does not make any points, or convince anyone. For the most part Ponte Vista supporters (except for Joe - sorry Joe, but it is true) were polite, stated their opinion and yielded the microphone when their time was up. The two most pertinent comments they made were that: 1) the range of housing for seniors and non-age restricted alike was one of the most important features of the project, and; 2) it was evident several members of the CAC had already decided their position which does not provide an environment for objective discussion.

¤ Now that I've pretty much upset everyone on both sides, if you are still reading, let me discuss some aspects of the project itself which I think are important.

• The first point I want to mention is the parks and open space. One of the major objections to Ponte Vista was that it would be gated. This has been eliminated. I would think people would be happy about it.

While it was not explicitly explained during the presentation, I'd like to offer a probability in answer to the question of who would be responsible for maintaining the 12+ acres of space now open to the public.

Most likely, the 6 (plus or minus) acres of park/athletic fields would most likely be titled over to Parks and Recreation. This makes sense. It is 6 contiguous acres and easily maintained by Parks & Rec. However, the other common areas within the project, and the water features would most likely remain the property of the project. Parks & Recreation is not always right on top of things and maintenance for these areas would most likely be demanded by homeowners.

• A point was brought up by a member of the CAC regarding this and who would pay for the maintenance. Given who made the point and their complete opposition to the project, I find it hard to believe they would suddenly be advocates for any prospective owners. But in the way of examples, there are many multiple-housing projects in San Pedro which are not gated and have common areas open to whomever wishes to take a stroll through. Therefore, this would not be unusual.

In case the argument is made that the owners should not have to pay fees for areas open to the public, this must be disclosed on sale and if a prospective buyer finds it that objectionable, they are free to not purchase at Ponte Vista.

• "Green" development. This is an outstanding decision. I have voiced the opinion for many months that living in a major metropolitan area, we cannot afford, environmentally, to continue building single-family homes on 5,000 square foot or larger lots. This change to the project adds icing-to-the-cake. Recycling water, using photovoltaic cells for generating electricity for common-area lighting, and shuttle-bus service makes ultimate sense.

The presentation was professional and complete. I do wish Mr. Bisno had explained what "LEED" certification was so I would not have had to look it up. I don't think I was the only one. (At least I hope not. If people start telling me they knew, I'm going to feel pretty stupid.)

The photovoltaic cells have been down-played by some other commenters about the project. I disagree. Soledad Garcia from the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council has been fighting the good fight with DWP to keep rates down. ANY electricity which can be generated internally is a boon.

Of course the cost is built into the price of the units. But if you calculate the cost into a 30-year mortgage, it is not even a couple pennies. Plus, after the project is complete and turned over to the HOA, it will be a source of lowering common area costs (which increase HOA dues) and could actually be a source of income further lowering the dues.


¤ Finally, my take on the size and composition of the project.

• I still feel 1,700 units is a good size. So does Jerry Gaines. With an increase of senior units to 850, that would lower non-age restricted units to 850. I would stick with my recommendation for 200 patio-homes leaving 650 townhomes. These numbers would reduce density, leave more open space, and, in my opinion, enhance the attractiveness of the project.

• Another disappointment for me was the presentation of 1,950 units. I understand Bisno is a developer and is always looking to maximize his profit, but it just seemed like the bare minimum he could come down and not really in keeping with "good-faith" negotiating.

• I would suggest that Bisno lose the 100 luxury attached single-family homes. I don't feel it is in keeping with the rest of the project, or the character of San Pedro.

• As has been mentioned in several places, the number of trips has still not been quantified. LA DOT said 1,837 units could be fully-mitigated. This was based upon 525 senior units and 1,312 non-age restricted units. If the project can come in even lower than that, given the increased number of senior units, that would increase the margin-of-error for traffic on Western. Anything which can be done to reduce that number SHOULD be done.

• To help reduce density, I also suggest the number of 4-bedroom units be reduced. Since that number has not yet been defined, it is a bit nebulous. However, I think 4-bedroom units fall into the same category as the luxury attached single-family homes and do not fit the character of the project.


¤ Conclusion

One of the public speakers at the CAC meeting was Doug Epperhart. The comment he made was the main reason I have taken 4 days to write this post. I have been debating with myself over it since Monday night.

That comment was words to the effect of "This project, Ponte Vista, is not San Pedro. It could be a development anywhere. There is nothing special which makes it San Pedro." Please excuse me if I do not remember it verbatim, but I think I got the main meaning of the comment.

• My question in response is "What is San Pedro? Is it the Gardens? Is it any of the many condo and apartment complexes? Is it some of the 60+ year-old ratholes that some people call houses? Is it the exclusive neighborhoods of Point Fermin and along Paseo Del Mar? What exactly is San Pedro? There is such a wide range of housing, how can you define what it is?"

Some people say we are just now recovering from the over-building of the '80s. How? By fencing off lots and growing weeds? How exactly are we "recovering"?

• My point-of-view about Ponte Vista is that we have a unique opportunity to re-define our community. We can continue to be a hodgepodge of nice homes, apartments and ratholes; OR we can set out on a new course to provide quality living at market rates. There is no holding back the tide. We cannot erect dikes around San Pedro to keep out the developers like they have dikes in New Orleans to keep out the water. (We saw how well the dikes worked there, eh?) One way or another San Pedro is going to be built up. We can either control it, or it will happen with little projects springing up like mushrooms all over town. All of them under-the-radar and suddenly we find ourselves with the same traffic problems, but no one developer we can compel to mitigate it.

I agree with Doug on the point of luxury homes not fitting with the character of the town, but that does not mean the entire project should be scrapped.

The future is upon us. Closing our eyes and pretending it isn't here will not stop it. Instead, let's take an active part in defining what we will become.