from p. 2
Development
“Proposals included in our response should be viewed more as examples of the work of those we assembled in preparing the response, and not as a plan we are advocating,” Ratkovitch said. Indeed, he explained that the real planning process lay ahead. “A strategy for the site has yet to be formed, but we have some ideas,” he said. “Our first task is to listen and to learn. We hope to listen to all interested parties, to learn from what we hear and what we see. We will share our development principles as they unfold, and we will present a wide variety of ideas.” This appears to allow for a maximum of community input, which had been a widelyvoiced concern among community activists. Ratkovitch also mentioned his long-standing association with the Urban Land Institute, whose earlier recommendations have been specifically advanced by Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council and others. Other developers, however, seemed to have been responding as if to a mini-RFP, and regarded the emphasis on non-project qualifications as a ‘lack of transparency’. Michael Tumanjan, of Majestic Realty, said that the 10-week response
window was “not nearly enough time to establish a complete concept and final drawing,” and complained that the approved “plan concept is outside the guidelines,” which Ratkovitch both freely admitted and explained. Mr. Peter Nash of McArther Glen asked the commissioners to “Take a step back and insist on more transparency.” Among the public, John Papadakis, who played a key role as chief promoter of the waterfront promenade concept prior to 2002, took the later complaint even farther, sending each of the commissioners what he described as “a list of apparent conflicts that point to a faulty selection process.” But several items involved misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the process as Mathewson explained it, while another tried to construe Ratkovitch’s association with ULI as a business conflict of interest, when ULI is not a business, and was not involved in the selection process. However, one point Papadakis raised did strike a wider chord. “It is not a transformation and it’s not an attraction,” he said, reflecting his long-standing position that the Waterfront needed to have some sort of spectacular impact. Homeowner activist Kathleen Woodfield phrased it a bit differently. “I think there’s general consensus that Ports O’Call needs to be a destination point, and a
world class project if it’s to generate activity necessary to help in reviving the port area and the downtown San Pedro area,” Woodfield said. “The port has chosen a developer team that has never built a destination project, and rejected developers who have built destination projects around the world.” But when Random Lengths reached out afterwards for further comment, Richard Havenick, who’s been involved in the process for over a decade, reached back to the lessons learned from the worldwide waterfront development community, when local activists and Port officials attended international development conferences. “A key lesson from the Urban Waterfront Planning conferences was, attract the local population and the others will follow,” he said. On the other hand, Peter Warren, whose involvement began a few years after Havenick’s, was considerably less optimistic about the Port’s stewardship over all its non-core functions. “We all know from recent history that the Port isn’t very good at listening,” he said. “Recall these three very prominent mistakes when the Port staff and commissioners bet on controversial non-container projects: the supertanker terminal, the expansion of cruise industry and the outer-harbor terminal, the LAXT coke export terminal. All were ballyhooed as vibrant can’t-miss projects. All are dead in the
water now.” But, in the comment meeting, former Port Attorney Pat Nave, active with the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council, represented the opposite perspective, stressing the importance of sticking with the chosen process so as not to undermine institutional credibility. He put the choice simply: “Is this to be another day of more delay or another day of we’re on our way?”
from previous page
L.A. and Carson Election Results rotated every few years amongst the elected council persons. Corresponding to the ballot measure, Mayor Jim Dear defeated Councilwoman Lula Davis Holmes in a 20 point landslide. Possibly helping Dear in the coming four years was the elevation of Water Board President Albert Robles to the City Council. He edged out Councilwoman Julie Ruiz Raber, leaving him and Councilman Mike Gipson as the two top vote-getters. Though the mayor backed Robles’ campaign, Robles has long standing relationship with Gipson going back 20 years, it is unclear how reliable a Dear
vote he will be. However, there is one thing that is certain, the block of three that has frustrated Dear over the past year has ended for the time being.
Measure M YES NO
Votes 1,628 8,042
Percentage 16.84% 83.16%
For Mayor: Term Ending March 2017 LULA DAVIS HOLMES 4,306 40.15% JIM DEAR 6,419 59.85%
For Member of the City Council: Term Ending March 2017 Votes Percentage STEPHEN C. ANYAKA 330 1.74% TIMOTHY R MUCKEY 265 1.40% JOSEPH GORDON 521 2.75% MIKE A. GIPSON 5,536 29.22% JULIE RUIZ-RABER 4,091 21.59% ALBERT ROBLES 4,512 23.81% CHARLOTTE BRIMMER 1,908 10.07% RITA R. BOGGS 1,786 9.43% All reported data was retrieved from the Carson and Los Angeles City Clerk’s offices. The Local Publication You Actually Read March 8 - 21, 2013
23