Bob's June 28 Letter to CAC Members

Bob Bisno has written a letter to members of Janice Hahn's Community Advisory Committee.

I received a copy of the letter not from any member of the committee, but it is a genuine copy of the letter.

I am going to copy a portion of the letter that suggests to me that Bob is still attempting to manipulate the committee members and is seeming to "threaten" that some amenities might not be included if committee members choose to recommend "1,200 to1,300 units".

I will copy portions of Page 3 and 4 of the letter Bob sent to committee members and cc to Ms. Janice Hahn:
________________________________________

B. The Committee's Recommendation on Project Size

At the June 18th meeting where we presented our revised proposal, the Committee took a straw poll regarding the number of units in the project, and I understand that you will be discussing the issue further at this evening's meeting. I recognize that the majority of the Committee expressed interest in supporting a project with approximately 1,200 to 1,300 units. There are compelling reasons, however, for providing a higher density that it is important for the Committee to consider before it makes any final recommendation. I would also comment that the factors that make any project viable and beneficial to a community go beyond simple unit count.

To begin with, a density of 1,200 total units would not support the broad range of housing prices that is possible with the density of our revised proposal (which is approximately 32 units per acre). Lower density housing consumes greater land area per unit, resulting in higher sales prices and association fees. Therefore, the unit prices targeted at "workforce" households would not be possible with a 1,200 unit project. Similarly, dramatically reducing the density of the project while retaining the public benefits and amenities desired by the Committee and the community, would place the price of senior units beyond the reach of all but the most affluent senior households. We have added 100 lower density, 3-story townhomes to Ponte Vista in response to the Committee's interest in lower density home ownership opportunities, but these will be among the most expensive units at Ponte Vista. Lower density units also increase - not decrease - trip generation as acknowledged by the ULI and ITE.

Second, a 1,200 unit project would not support the community amenities and community benefits that are one of the hallmarks of Ponte Vista. Because lower density housing consumes greater area, less land would be available ro common amenities and open space. In addition, the cost of amenities and public benefits (such as the road to Mary Star, public park, and community trust fund) would need to be spread out among a smaller number of families, resulting in significant surcharges on both sales prices and homeowner association fees. Units laden with such surcharges would not be competitive in the housing market, and would not be a realistic option for any developer. That this is a reality and not merely my opinion was demonstrated by your tours of other actual projects in the area. All of the lower density developments visited, such at the Cape, Enclave, Bay Harbor, or Stonehaven, provide little in the way of common amenities and open space for their residents, and none of them provide any public amenities or community benefits.

While individuals may prefer varying levels of density, the density proposed by the revised proposal is necessary to achieve three of the key goals of many on the Committee and in the community: 1) a diverse range of home ownership opportunities, including options for seniors and workforce housing; 2) premium amenities and open spaces that will provide these diverse households with a unique and highly desirable community; and 3) significant public benefits that go beyond the mitigation of the project's impacts.

Conclusion

For all these reasons, I respectfully request that before the Committee takes any final action it give fair and serious consideration to our revised proposal, and that it consider the need for an adequate density that will actually support the inclusion of workforce housing, senior housing, and the many amenities and benefits the community desires. I also ask that any report the Committee issues acknowledge the work we have done together, and the many changes we have made in a good faith effort to address concerns you have raised. A fair, thoughtful and balanced process is the best assurance we have for a viable and beneficial project at Ponte Vista.

Thank you again for your time and effort.

Very truly yours,

(signed) Robert H. Bisno
____________________________________________


Where oh where should we begin?

I guess some folks will read what Bob wrote and suggest that for the past ten months and on into the future it was always and will continue to be Bob's way or no way, no matter what the CAC recommends.

Others may remind Bob about whether he can spell "speculation".

As far as I read these portions of the letter, it looks like no matter what the Committee's majority or minority report recommends, Bob wasn't going to use either of them, anyway.

It looks like Bob is threatening to pull amenities and public benefits if he doesn't get what he wants.

He also tries to claim that he was respectful and realistic when he lowered his total unit count by 350 units. That sure didn't sound respectful or realistic to his opponents and many of his own supporters, does it?

Build it my way or else, seems to be what Bob is instructing the members of the CAC to recommend. This must be because he knows so much more about OUR community than the thirteen members who live in OUR community, some for all of their lives. How respectful is that?

Bob's letter is providing even more reasons not to change the current zoning at Ponte Vista, I believe. He seems to be attempting to manipulate recommendations that haven't even been made yet, and continue to control the actions of the CAC.

So many people claim there is a need for housing in our area, yet the only housing Bob seems willing to build is what he wants to build and not what may truly be needed in OUR community.

If housing is needed so badly, then why didn't he propose bare-bones housing types, with more reasonable pricing to a greater number of potential residents? Why is he trying to build a premium development when so many folks believe there is such a need for more housing in the area, that there should be a development of less than premium housing and amenities built?

He still want to build Cadillacs for folks who think we really need Chevrolets, it seems to me.

I hope you read what Bob wrote, both the lines written and your thoughts of what Bob really meant between the lines.

32 units per acre with his revised proposal is still about 2-1/2 times the density of The Gardens and I believe it is greater that the Apartment development he is modeling Ponte Vista like, which is in Newport Beach.

Bob's attempts to dismiss proposals made by Jerry Gaines (1,225-units) and John Greenwood (893-units) demonstrate that Bob will not be willing to accept any recommendation that the CAC makes. He seems to be broadcasting that fact even before the CAC has voted on a recommendation concerning density.

Bob wants the Committee to review his new proposal as much as possible, but still be finished with their work by July 24, I feel. How can the CAC review and make realistic, reasonable, and responsible comments on his proposal and at the same time come up with their own recommendations concerning density.

The bath water has grown cold over these last ten months. It became apparent early on that Bob was most probably going to throw the baby out with the bath water and his letter seems to prove that. At least he should have respected the family that is the Committee enough to throw out the baby with warm bath water instead of waiting until the poor baby died of hypothermia , so long ago.