Friday, October 29, 2010

Odds and Ends 192

Click on image to enlarge.
I think it is important to demonstrate resolve to get the tanks moved.
There are places they can have their contents moved to and if the steel is not moved, it should be recycled for use in many different things.
I also think it is important for the good folks representing Ponte Vista at San Pedro to also become involved with getting the tanks moved.
They could show a real civic support and it would be a good marketing move that would show they are all concerned with the health and safety of all those who may eventually move into what might be built at Ponte Vista.
The numbers of units in each product type that now would make up 1,135 total units remains very troubling to me and others, I am finding out.
I do think we all need to sit in the dugout to learn as much as we can prior to the November 29 deadline for comments on the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study.
I can feel there will be some stiff opposition to some of the units being considered for development and I can see that having such a large percentage of units that could or would be rentals or leases makes what I was hoping to find a somewhat trouble-free discussion and debate period, now looking more like a period of hot debate and difficult discussions.
I think what we have with this latest plan is a carrot and stick approach of a carrot and stick plan.
Offering up to 143 SFR, detached units and then stating that 392 of the 1,135-total unit count would be 'apartment flats' suggests that the development team is using the detached houses as the carrot for the 392 'sticks' of apartment flats. And that's not even counting the other condominium building of four-stories.
But the overall carrot and stick plan could be that should too much opposition to the current development plans emerge, the developers may pull all their sticks out and head for offering up to 20% of the units for "low income" owners or renters and then applying for the almost certain approval of a density bonus that could add up to a total of about 1,532-total units, with at least 33% of those units being rentals or leases.
It could be that the housing market determines what, if anything will get approved, according to the current plans.
The developers have to gain a huge sum of money unless they allow the land to go back into the hands of the primary and secondary lenders.
Sunday is Halloween and Western Avenue will get even spookier than it normally is during the evening.
Please remain careful and take it from me, you don't want to be walking along the Avenue carrying uncooked eggs in your shirt pockets.
The vote on Measure P is Tuesday, finally.
The facts are now available for everyone to view and one of the facts contained in the measure is that a new library, maintenance building, athletic facility, residential halls, and a gallery "MAY" be built on the campus of Marymount College, but any or all of them may NOT get built, according to the actual language of Measure P.
If you have suffered with all the "Yes on P" mailers that contain factually misleading information, rest assured, we are only about to end the beginning of the saga and fiasco and a population of somewhat affluent residents (I am definitely not affluent) can do wonders should they not get what they want during Tuesday's election outcome reporting.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report

Click on images above to enlarge them.
This is the official public notice of the seconf Public Scoping Meeting for Ponte Vista at San Pedro and the first public meeting dealing with the new Environmental Impact Report now undergoing studies.
The Public Scoping Meeting is scheduled for November 10, 2010 at the Peck Park Auditorium and it is important that everyone who has concerns either in support of the new plans or now having some opposition and those who just have questions and want to learn more, to come to the meeting and listen, learn, comment, and become active.
Also a very important date to remember is November 29, 2010 which is the ending date for submission of written comments to the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study.
Your imput is important and youre comments have weight and will be reviewes.
As for the actual plans of what MAY be built at Ponte Vista, more information will certainly be available at the meeting and throughout the course of the time between now and when the Los Angeles City Council finally votes on what will be approved or not approved at the 61.53 acre site.

More Than 1/3 "Apartment flats" and Only 143 Single Family Detached Residences

Click on images to enlarge them.
I must admit that I was caught off guard by the illustrations and Product Type Diagrams because I was at first delighted to see that 143 of the units MAY be single family, detached residents on basically no lot at all.
But when I got to the bottom and read that over one third of the Project is slated to be "apartment flats" in a four-story building, it demonstrated that all is not as well as it should be, in our community.
Like everyone, I need to learn a lot more about the proposal and product types. It is a really tough thing for me to have to swallow the idea of "apartment flats" even though I know many other townhouses and condos will also become rentals and leased residences.
It is not really now a stretch to consider than SHOULD Ponte Vista at San Pedro be built out as it is diagrammed right now, more than half of the residential units could be leased our or provided to renters.
This is a very real and big problem because the the more transient nature renters have and there could be an almost non-stop view on weekends of moving vans, pickup truck, and other vehicles specializing in moving renters in and out.
I do wish that some of the units were designated for seniors but I do understand the problems with trying to supply them in this day and age and housing problems.
I will continue to contend that Ponte Vista at San Pedro should have no more than 831 dwelling units to make that area equivalent in dwelling density to The Gardens.
Perhaps I am just frustrated with these new plans and I am remembering "The Bob Years" while I looked at the "392- apartment flats" and thought that here we go again with a great deal of opposition to these new plans.
I think it is a poor thing to see that over 1/3 of the planned units are scheduled to be "apartment flats" and I am hopeful that this time, the new development team of Ponte Vista will listen and learn.
I do have a feeling though, that should the "apartment flats" be taken out of the mix, the new Ponte Vista at San Pedro development team will then seek a density bonus, which is not a good option either, for our community I feel.
Please plan on attending the Public Scoping Meeting on November 10. I am sure we will all learn new details about Ponte Vista at San Pedro and we should be willing to listen before any real overt opposition shouts out.
But please do not be misinformed, there will be more than a little opposition to these new plans now that everyone now has the opportunity so see the product types and the numbers of each type.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Odds and Ends 191

With my focus on other issues like Measure P, The Marymount Plan, "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers", "And To All A Good Night" and just trying to work through the almost never ending wet weather, I've got nothing this week for Odds and Ends.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Odds and Ends 190

The following is on the Agenda under the Consent Calendar portion of this Tuesday's Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting:

3. Grant Application to Develop a Western Avenue Corridor Strategy

Western Avenue is State Highway 213 and beautifying it is simply a good thing to attempt and then do, in my opinion.

Naturally I and others support the city of Rancho Palos Verdes filing a Grant Application and if I am not at a rehearsal, I will head towards Tuesday's meeting and encourage all other supporters of the Grant Application, no matter where they live to attend and speak on the item.
For Rancho Palos Verdes residents who received yesterday's mailer from Marymount and all those who viewed the full page advertisement in The South Bay Daily News, isn't it remarkable that Marymount chose not to use any information about the 'assessed home values of residences adjacent to a College campus that has on-campus student housing?

Either they just 'missed' supplying Mr. Auerbach's opinion on dorms near houses, he didn't offer a quote on that subject or more probably, Marymount's campaign continues to use misdirection, and misleading misinformation in its (so far) $1,566,000 expenditure to get Measure P, The Marymount Plan passed by voters.
Fondness of this current weather pattern north of Ninth Street near Western Avenue is not something I am enjoying at the moment.

I need to build a huge 'Pontipee House' for November's "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" at the Warner Grand Theatre and the fog, drizzle, and recent rain is not helping.

Of course we need the moisture and cooler temperatures. I just want to implore Mother Nature to let the wetness fall during the nighttime, if she pleases.
I don't have anything specifically to report concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro on this post.

I do feel that is now acceptable to compare Ponte Vista's current Management, current dealings with the public, and potential to offer a great Development based on community involvement with what is happening with Marymount College and what seems to be approaches similar to what we all suffered through during "The Bob Bisno Years".

I haven't found a single supporter or opponent of Ponte Vista's plans during "The Bob Bisno Years" that had even a 'good' time, some years after Bob was shown both sides of the door by way of a really large boot, I bet.

Friday, October 08, 2010

Odds and Ends 189

Here is an article from the Thursday October 7, 2010 Palos Verdes Peninsula News:

Ponte Vista owner presents new plans
By Ashley Ratcliff, Peninsula News
Thursday, October 7, 2010 11:20 AM PDT

The proposed Ponte Vista housing project, located on Western Avenue in San Pedro, is situated on a 61.5-acre site that formerly was used for Navy residences. Developers iStar Financial Inc. recently released a scaled-back project with 1,135 units.
SAN PEDRO — A project that seeks to develop homes on a parcel land, vacant since 1997, has undergone yet another transformation — units were reduced to less than half of the figure originally proposed.

In its first iteration, the proposed Ponte Vista project — located on the site of 245 former U.S. Navy houses in San Pedro — included 2,300 for-sale residential units for an estimated 4,300 people. Its most recent proposal, recently presented to Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, includes 1,135 homes on a 61.5-acre site that borders the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

“For years, I have joined with the community to push for a smaller project at the Ponte Vista site, and I was encouraged by my recent meeting with [developers] iStar [Financial Inc.],” Hahn said in a statement. “They have been listening and it looks like the concerns of the community, and the recommendations of the planning department, have finally been heard — as this number is much closer to what makes sense in this part of San Pedro.”

“It’s a step in the right direction,” added Mark Wells, an eastern RPV resident. “I prefer no more than 831 units there, because that’s the dwelling density equivalent to The Gardens, which is the large condominium development next to it.”

The L.A. Planning Department had previously recommended a density of 775 to 885 units on the property, located at 26900 S. Western Ave., directly across the street from Green Hills Memorial Park in RPV, just south of Palos Verdes Drive North.

Developers in L.A. are granted a “density bonus” if affordable housing is offered. With the bonus, the Planning Department’s number would increase to 1,195 units, according to Hahn.

However, Hahn said she is working to ensure that a density bonus will be prohibited at the site, limiting the total number of units to a maximum of 1,135.

Steve Magee, iStar Financial’s vice president, said the development will include a mix of housing types, such as townhomes and condominiums, which will be “accessible to a variety of households and income levels.”

While the plan, previously under the direction of Bisno Development Co., specified that 575 units would be reserved for senior housing for those ages 55 and older, the new proposal has eliminated that component altogether.

“The idea that older San Pedrans would move from their larger homes into condos at Ponte Vista [has] basically vanished,” Wells wrote in a blog post. “I don’t like that at all.”

RPV residents whose homes are adjacent to the proposed development are concerned about Ponte Vista because Western Avenue would be the only major thoroughfare for the project.

RPV Mayor Steve Wolowicz attended a June 2008 public hearing to speak on behalf of his constituents, which he called “the neighbor most affected by all of this.” He urged the developer to maintain RPV homeowners’ quality of life.

“This is not a NIMBY response on our part. It is not in our backyard — as a matter of fact, it is in our front yard,” then-Councilman Wolowicz said.

Wells said residents should be concerned about the Ponte Vista project for four reasons: traffic, the density bonus, the stability of iStar Financial — which, according to Bloomberg News report, may be on the verge of filing bankruptcy — and a general question of whether the new development will benefit or hurt the San Pedro community economically.

According to Wells, the climate has changed dramatically from prior interactions with Bob Bisno of former developer Bisno Development.

“I do appreciate very much how iStar Financial is trying to work with the community,” Wells said.

A new environmental impact report and traffic study currently are under way; however, the conceptual drawings have not been released and there hasn’t been any word of a public meeting concerning the latest project updates.

“We know the community shares our desire to improve this blighted piece of property with a development that addresses San Pedro’s needs for high-quality and mixed-income housing, while employing local workers to build the project,” Magee said in a statement. “As we finalize the site plans and begin the process of getting Ponte Vista built, we look forward to ongoing conversations with our neighbors, Councilwoman Hahn, and the community.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For those who may not know, I served along with three other Rancho Palos Verdes residents on Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn's Community Advisory Committee regarding the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development several years ago.

Ms. Leah Marinkovich, Ms. Lucie Thorsen, Mr. Richard Brunner, and I were approved to serve on Ms. Hahn's Committee by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.

I am one of Ms. Ratcliff's 'go to' persons for comments and quotes about Ponte Vista at San Pedro and I appreciate her always correct, insightful, and most importantly, fair reporting concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I believe that the ongoing new studies that will lead to a new Environmental Impact Report do not need a new Notice of Preparation or Initial Study because they have already been written and commented on, about four years ago.

There will be ample time for interested parties to read and offer comment on the new Environmental Impact Report mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

I will continue to post more information about the sequences that will be followed between now and the date the final vote by the Los Angeles City Council regarding any zone changing municipal codes that may or may not be approved for Ponte Vista.
It looks to me as if Dr. Michael Brophy and others representing Marymount College may have taken a marketing course from one Robert H. Bisno.

Throw money at a really bad idea and you end up with a really bad idea having money thrown at it.

Marymount has spent ninety two times the number of dollars the opposition of Measure P, The Marymount Plan has spent, according to required financial statements.

At this point, with the publications of a full page ad and a half page advertisement stating "The Rancho Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce endorses Measure P" I have reached my point of utter disgust with the misleading, deceptive, and false statements coming from the Yes on Measure P campaign.

The heading is deceptive, misleading, and utterly false because of several reasons.

It is clearly an attempt to single out Rancho Palos Verdes residents who are not aware that there is no such entity as The Rancho Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.

The campaign wants potential voters to remain uneducated that the majority of businesses represented by membership in The Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce do not have addresses in Rancho Palos Verdes.

They probably don't like you to know that the Director of Communications of Marymount College sits on the Board of Directors of The Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce or that the Chamber endorsed The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project about two years ago.

I support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project as does The Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.

During "The Bob Years" we all saw the damage caused by Bob Bisno's marketing practices that created the most divided population of the San Pedro community.

What we see today is a virtual repeat of "The Bob Years" with "The Michael Years" and how one entity attempting to have its way over the residents and government of a community can tear the community apart with little regard for any resident or the future of the community.

The simple truth about Measure P, The Marymount Plan is that it seeks to rest control and authority from the people of Rancho Palos Verdes and provide an overwhelming revenue stream to a College that has been on academic warning in the past and which has seen harassment, death, and underage drinking all too common on too many campuses.

It's all about changing municipal codes just like what Bob worked so hard and poorly trying to do.

Thank goodness we have new leadership representing Ponte Vista at San Pedro and can only wait until Dr. Brophy is handed his papers and he flees the area, just like what happened to Bob Bisno.
Also for Rancho Palos Verdes readers of this blog, the election to determine whether Rancho Palos Verdes becomes a Charter City has been set.
Denny's on Western Avenue is conducting a petition drive which I am also helping out with via an unscientific poll on my site.

The owners, managers, and lots of other people want the restaurant to remain open 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.

According to at least one manager I talked with, longshore workers want more options with 24-hour restaurants.

Carrow's has either begun or soon will begin remaining open 24 hours per day, 7 day's a week as I have been told.

Do we want two nearby restaurants remaining open 24/7?

I don't object to either or both being open around the clock and I live extremely close to Denny's.

It would take a vote by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to allow Denny's to remain open 24/7 and that may be a very, very complicated thing.

There are only 4-7-11 stores out of over 263 in the greater L.A. Basin that are not allowed to remain open 24/7. Rancho Palos Verdes has two of the four stores.

If Denny's wins its wish to remain open 24/7, I think the Southland Corporation and the 7-11 L.A. area management would be right on the heels of Denny's, should approval for Denny's to remain open all the time is successful.

Friday, October 01, 2010

Odds and Ends 188

I will devote another post to my major concerns with the new plan.
Someone wrote a comment to something written in a newspaper questioning what some people were doing with computers while sitting by some intersections on Western Avenue.

Those folks were probably counting the number of cars passing through the intersection and how many and which direction drivers turned into or out of the intersection.

It is quite normal as a part of any full traffic study which we have learned will be conducted for the new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will be produced as the major study of the new Plan or Application to build 1,135-units at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

I talked with Ms. Elise Swanson, the Vice-President in charge of the Ponte Vista site and the Team Leader of the Project and she confirmed to me that the traffic study for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro is now going on.

Not only will we be seeing folks counting vehicles at intersections, we will also see traffic counting tubes across many of the roadways in the area. You might even see some counters on streets you would not think need traffic counts for.

Personally I am pleased that the study is taking in traffic information at this time. All the schools are in session, just about every business along Western Avenue is open. There are a couple of temporary businesses now open for Halloween and I don't know if or how that might be a factor in the counts.

What I will be looking for in the Ponte Vista Traffic Study is an indication or counts related to the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council at the end of this past March.

Neither of the two traffic studies for Ponte Vista and Marymount could have been incorporated with each other, but since the Marymount Traffic Study is published and approved, I think it needs to be incorporated somewhere in the pages of the Ponte Vista Traffic Study. I fully expect it will.
I am somewhat amazed that the roadway on Capitol Drive right over the long-lasting water seepage has not caved in.

Water has been dribbling out and onto the surface of Capitol Drive for quite some time and I would have expected the ground under the asphalt to get so wet that is would not support the weight of the asphalt thus creating at least a pothole.

It's a wonder for me.
Now here is a reminder to please check out: which Ms. Kristina Smith offers our community a great deal of information. Naturally I have it bookmarked so I can just click it and head there.

Look for the link on this blog.

You survived the hottest day. The fact that the hottest day was not during the Summer doesn't really matter because there are usually days long hot spells in September and October every year.

On the hottest day Terri and I were enjoying being in the surf of the Pacific Ocean at about 1:45 PM. On our way home from the beach I watched the thermometer in her Saturn as it reported different temperatures as we went north of 9th Street and the relative coolness (81 degrees) along Western between 19Th and 9Th headed back towards a more normal 106 degrees on the street we live on.

Eastview and northwest San Pedro share the same weather which is usually hotter, smoggier, and dryer than the rest of San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes.
The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Plan or The Marymount Plan, that is the question.
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?" (Thank you William Shakespeare)

The answer for me, Terri, and I hope the majority of voters in Rancho Palos Verdes is to vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

I usually support on-campus housing at just about every College or University that wants them. I support the Salvation Army's Officers' College which has on campus student housing in Rancho Palos Verdes for students and even the family members of some students.

With Marymount College, I consider that on-campus housing of students would be unsafe and could not be mitigated to a level I would consider safe enough.

The case that there should not be an Initiative on the matter does not hold water for me. While I don't like local initiatives I continue to support the allowances for State-wide Initiatives.

I don't like the motto of Save RPV or Save Our City III. I do believe that The Marymount Plan provides special privileges to one particular business over other businesses and all residents on Rancho Palos Verdes. I just think "RPV is not for sale" could have been changed to something else.

Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan. Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.

My Four Concerns About The New Plan

The day before The Daily Breeze published the article about the new plan for Ponte Vista at San Pedro, Councilwoman Janice Hahn called me and we talked about some of the new plans for the development.

Some of what I said to Councilwoman Hahn was also used by Ms. Donna Littlejohn in her article.
Since the calls and some more investigation about iStar Financial on my part, I started really considering what my thoughts, concerns, and considerations are.

So this post begins my contribution of those thoughts, concerns, and considerations.

First and before we begin, I need to clear up some misinformation repeatedly posted in print and mentioned.

Ponte Vista at San Pedro is a 61.53-acre site and NOT "62.5" acres Yes. it is a really petty thing to mention, but unless the site grew one acre since it was surveyed, then it is still 61.53 acres. Let's move on.

My four major areas of concern are:
Density Bonus

iStar Financial
New Residential Support To San Pedro Versus The Costs By The Community.

will require its own post.

Density Bonus

A Density Bonus of up to a 35% increase in the number of units planned has been encouraged for developments where some 'low income' or 'affordable' housing is offered.

As of today, there has been no indication that the developers of Ponte Vista at San Pedro will offer 'low income' or 'affordable' housing that would qualify the Project for any density bonus.

An example of the number of units that could be built using 1,135-units as a base number would allow for up to 1,532-units actually being approved for construction.

Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa and many others have strongly encouraged developers in Los Angeles building more projects using density bonuses to offer more housing to people.

Since iStar Financial and just about everyone else affiliated with Ponte Vista at San Pedro have made statements that iStar would not seek a density bonus for Ponte Vista, that part I am fine with.

I was encouraged during my talk with Councilwoman Hahn when she told me she and her staff would work with others in the city to try and find a way to block any density bonus from ever being applied to the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.

Ms. Hahn worked with a group of wonderful residents of the Vista Del Oro neighborhoods to place onto commercially zoned lots a "Q" qualification classification that would permanently ban multi-unit residential construction on those lots.

It was the first attempt by Councilwoman to apply that type of building restriction on lots and it passed the full City Council unanimously.

A "Q" qualification classification is a very rare zoning classification in Los Angeles and the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, I am finding it harder to find where a density bonus restriction could be permanently applied to any development the size Ponte Vista at San Pedro is now.

Concerns that once entitlements are granted for the (about) 22 existing lot at Ponte Vista, they could be sold to other developers who might want density bonuses on the lots they purchase.

Note* There are approximately 245 duplex units currently standing at Ponte Vista. The most recent surveys of Ponte Vista, done for the original project list (about) 22 different lots at Ponte Vista. Technically, one or more lots or even all of the lots could be sold by iStar Financial once that Company receives entitlements to build.

This is not all that uncommon that developers receive entitlements then sell them without actually building anything the original developer states they would build.

My contention that Ponte Vista should have not more than 831-units is based on the dwelling equalivancy with The Gardens and the fact that there is no outlet for Ponte Vista traffic onto or off of Gaffey Street.

So for me, any density bonus by any developer is a major concern that I feel needs to be dealt with by a municipal code that would permanently restrict a density bonus on all of the 61.53 acres now known as Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

I think should no such restriction be applied to the property, then I am leaning very heavily toward having the zoning at Ponte Vista at San Pedro remaining what it currently is.

iStar Financial

Although I am favorable towards iStar Financial, the financial backers of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, recent education by me has placed this company as a major concern of mine.

The majority of more educated former opponents of Bob Bisno's original plans continue to believe that once iStar Financial receives entitlements to build at Ponte Vista, they will sell those entitlements and the land and be gone with whatever loss or gain they can get.

In complete defense of iStar Financial I need to educate those that do not already know that the original bid for 41.95 acres of land at auction was purchased by Bob Bisno's business interests for two hundred fifty two percent of the opening bid for that portion of Ponte Vista at auction.

Bob's winning bid was $88,000,000.00 which equals $2,097,753.40 (approx) per acre.

Bob was required to purchase the remaining 19.58 acres from the Volunteers of America for $34,000,000.00 which equals $1,736,465.78 (approx) per acre.

In a nutshell: 61.53 total acres for $122,000,000.00 equals $1,982,772.63 (approx)
Per acre.

Today, the land is worth nowhere near 1.99 Million Dollars per acre.

There have been articles in Bloomberg News and other sources that offer information that I find conflicting and I need more information about.

A Bloomberg News article offered the question whether iStar Financial is close to bankruptcy. I found another article on the Web that illustrated that iStar Financial just bought the common areas of a large condominium development back east.

In doing further searches related to iStar, different pictures seem to surface.

I used the post from Your Ponte Vista on this blog that has information from an iStar Manager.

I gave a tip to Ms. Donna Littlejohn that ended up being a useful and great article Ms. Littlejohn had published in The Daily News.

Will iStar Financial continue its participation with Ponte Vista until entitlements are granted?

I don't know and because it may take a year or so for the Los Angeles City Council's voting on entitlements and a new municipal code changing the current zoning of the Ponte Vista site, I don't know if anyone else knows, either.

What I can write is that I am so pleased that "The Bob Years" are over and that as long as iStar Financial is in the picture, that is a good to very good thing, in my opinion.

Should iStar Financial have to rid itself of the huge dept that Bob Bisno built prior to the vote by the City Council, I have no idea what would then happen. I don't know who might know, either.

Should iStar Financial receive entitlements for Ponte Vista, looking at the prices Bob paid, the current land values, and wondering how iStar could make any money, the prospect of iStar Financial selling pieces of Ponte Vista or perhaps the whole site to another development entity, provides a great deal of concern in me.

Bob ordered the anchor lowered and then unfortunately it looks like iStar got its neck wrapped around the anchor's chain.

iStar Financial representatives have repeatedly stated that they will not seek a density bonus. I hope they are still around when any building begins.

New Residential Support To San Pedro Versus The Costs By The Community.

Original studies conducted my me and others found that a huge development at Ponte Vista at San Pedro would cost more to the San Pedro community than what the community could afford.

Because there are no major shopping areas like malls, multi-screen theatres, large car dealerships, huge furniture and appliance stores in San Pedro and particularly in its downtown district, a large development at Ponte Vista would tax the San Pedro community in several ways.

It is wonderful that Target is here and it provides benefits we all need and want. it wasn't around during "The Bob Years".

Home Depot, American Furniture, Nader's, and other small furniture and appliance stores are in San Pedro.

But would residents of Ponte Vista go to many of the smaller stores in San Pedro?

Home Depot and Target supply some good and newer revenue to the city of L.A. even though very little of that revenue comes back to San Pedro.

Water continues to be in short supply and any new water requirements could affect water requirements for San Pedrans and everyone else in L.A.

Other infrastructure issues need to also be considered because our community has been consistently neglected by too many at L.A. City Hall.

L.A. takes our community's money, including our port's money and then does not really provide enough support back to San Pedro and other nearby communities. This has gone on for what seems forever.

Before the 2008 financial meltdown and the beginning of all the layoffs, only 6 out of ten San Pedro residents could go to local jobs in and around the community.

Having less than one job per working resident means that many residents have to commute.

Ponte Vista at San Pedro with its Western Avenue ONLY in and out route and the fact that there is currently only one bus line that goes along Western, along with the distance to and from the freeway and park and ride facilities prove that Ponte Vista can't really be considered commuter-friendly.

Since there are not longer plans to have a specified Senior section at Ponte Vista, the idea that older San Pedrans would move from their larger homes and into condos at Ponte Vista as basically vanished. I don't like that at all.

It has already been estimated that the vast majority of residents moving into Ponte Vista would not come from the 'local' area which consists partially of San Pedro.

What is of a major concern of mine right now is that a large development at Ponte Vista would take more from the residents of the San Pedro community than it would give back to the economy, infrastructure, and society in San Pedro.

Most new residents of Ponte Vista would not shop in downtown San Pedro because of tough access to Gaffey and Pacific. They would choose to either stick to businesses along Western Avenue or head out north and west to venture into Torrance, Rolling Hills Estates and even farther out except when they can visit Target and Home Depot, here.

I haven't seen any numbers yet about the proposed number of bedrooms in each unit of the proposed 1,135-unit Project. That could also indicate spending trends, too.

Ponte Vista will almost certainly become a neighborhood with rental units and leased units. More transitory residents may help Target and Home Depot, but the heightened number of comings and goings by renters is also a concern that adds to the major concerns I have on this particular topic.

But this is a topic I feel strongly that the community can come together with the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development Team to work on solutions.

I have found no reason to be as contentious as I was during The Bob Years. I think 1,135-units is far less unreasonable than the previous three sets of numbers.

I have now found respect where is wasn't found during "The Bob Years" and that is a very big plus.

I have used four "R" words in considering three Developments I have dealt with:

Reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful. During "The Bob Years" not one of the four were thought of my me and many others when thinking about Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

That has thankfully and wonderfully changed for the better, in my opinion.

Is the current plan reasonable? I'm still a 832-units guy but I can now imagine many of the former opponents find the new plan reasonable and I now consider it (at 1,135) not unreasonable, but not all that much reasonable.

Is it responsible? Easily that is a yes in part because is now demonstrated a much more responsible view towards the community and the infrastructure.

Is it realistic? Now that is the one question I still don't know the real answer to. That is why we see traffic counters out and about. That is why we also find that other new studies are being undertaken at this time. "1,135-units" might very well be realistic, I just need to wait this one out.

Is it respectful. It certainly is compared to the previous plans, I believe.

I think iStar Financial is respectful and needs to continue to be respectful if they want to receive entitlements they seek.

The good people at Ponte Vista at San Pedro could show a thing or ten to those who support Measure P, The Marymount Plan in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Doing things differently and better could offer to those in "The Marymount Community" chances to improve their lot(s), so to write.

It is remarkable for me now to use the folks at Ponte Vista as an example of betterment towards the community and I hope Dr. Brophy and Mr. Burt Arnold read this post.