Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Figures, Sources, and Stuff

The DEIR continues to enlighten me, and hopefully you, about the project.

What I have found much more interesting is within the pages of the three volumes of Appendices of the DEIR.

I have been able to read and find sources for some figures I have found very important in my attempt to get an actual handle on the scope of the project. There is however, one figure that I could not source in the printed documents. Fortunately, I found the best source for the reasoning of that particular figure, right from the developer himself. That is the figure I will lead off with.

Why are 2,300 homes being proposed for the project and not some other number?

Mr. Bisno told me directly, and later answered my question in public, his reasoning.

Mr. Bisno, in contemplating the number of homes that could be built at Ponte Vista, asked his Traffic Engineer, Mr. David Shender, what is the greatest number of homes, under certain conditions, that can be built and have the traffic concerns generated, be mitigated, completely and successfully for every one's benefit. 2,300 homes would be possible, according to Mr. Shender and others if 25% of the homes were designated "senior housing" and the remaining 75% non-age restricted.

I feel Mr. Bisno honestly and completely revealed his opinion about the number.


R1 or R-1. This is zoning for single-family, detached homes numbering up to nine units per acre.

It is true that the Navy was under no restriction to build whatever it wanted to on its site, no matter what the zoning may have been. I don't know what the original zoning, if any, was placed on the land before the Navy acquired it many, many years ago.

Many of us, including me, had the misconception that the U.S. Navy and/or the agency hired to sell the property on behalf of the Navy established the zoning. This is not true.

In fact, until 1980, the property then owned by the government, was in the Incorporated area of Los Angeles County.

The land was annexed by the City of Los Angeles pursuant to City of L.A. Ordinance 154-525.
In annexing the land, the City of Los Angeles designated the land as "Low Residential" under the City of Los Angeles' Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan, and zoned (the land)
"R1-1XL" (Single-Family; Height limited to 2-stories/30 feet).

Projected approximate population of the project at build out was estimated to be 7,343 permanent residents.

The source for this figure is found in: Technical Appendices, Volume I,
Appendix I-1, which is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study of the project that was published on July 11, 2006.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis,
Section 12: Population and Housing,
Pages 35, and 36.

I haven't found any back-up documentation on how this figure was established.

Projected approximate population of the project at build out was estimated to be 4,313
permanent residents.

The Source for this figure is found in Housing & Population Impacts Technical Report of the Draft EIR, Item C, " Population Setting and Project Impacts, Page 7 and 8.

This estimate is based on an average of 1.5 senior per senior housing unit, and an average of 2.0 residents in the "family units".

Using the average of 1.5 residents for each of the 575 age restricted units, and the average of 2.0 residents for each of the 1,725 non-age restricted units, the figure of 4,313 calculates.

It is also listed on the pages that the average number of residents per units in other areas is not equal to the averages proposed for Ponte Vista. The totaled average for the approximate number of residents in each unit of the Ponte Vista project is 1.875 permanent residents. This average is somewhat to much lower than in other areas, in my opinion.

$101 million dollars is the predicted annual spending within a five-mile radius of the site.

Source: Draft EIR, Economic & Fiscal Impacts Technical Report, pages two and three explain how this figure was derived.

The figure is based on the level of income required to purchase a home within Ponte Vista, and not by the number of residents spending the money.

"The analysis is based on spending patterns for households at the income level required to purchase Project dwelling units."

5,750. The number of parking spaces provided within the walls/fences/gates of the Ponte Vista Project for residents and guests.

Source: Draft EIR, Section IV.J. Transportation and Traffic, beginning on page IV.J-32.

Looking at the top line of Page IV.J-34 you will read the following;

"Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the residential land use components were based upon rates per number of dwelling units."

Page IV.J-32 gives the breakdown of numbers of parking spaces that would be provided in a 2,300-unit:

1. Two spaces per unit for resident parking.

2. 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking.

"Accordingly, a minimum of 5,750 parking spaces would be provided."

Reviewing the figures I have listed, still has me confused.

Projected spending within a five-mile radius/per year by residents of the project is based on the income level of purchasers of the units and not by the number of people who would actually spend the money.

There could be approximately 4,313 and/or 7,343 permanent residents, or some other figure. the figure, "4,313" is derived from an average of potential residents in the project and is a lower than averages in other areas.

The number of vehicles calculated to have parking spaces within Ponte Vista is based on the number of units built, but not the number of drivers who will live in the units, or how many vehicles, residents of similar-sized projects currently own.

During my entire life, I have never seen a residential structure drive itself to shop for anything, whether it is within a five-mile radius or not.

To make reasonable recommendations about something, I need to have reasonable, realistic, responsible, and respectful facts.

I need to know the approximate number of permanent residents at build-out, the true amount of money they might spend in the economy, and how many vehicles the residents will operate.

As a new commenter, "tom", has written, it looks like there's going to be a lot of "splainin" to do.
I think he liked Ricky Ricardo.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

an amazing meeting tonight. isn't democracy great?!

M Richards said...

Why yes it was, for many reasons.

I am probably going to take several posts to deal with the meeting tonight and newly learned figures, facts, and stuff.

Pleas stay tuned.

Anonymous said...

dear m richards please accept my appology if you have taken umbridge to my comments i dont have a clue who you are and meant no harm . however if you cannot handle my questions maybe you should just back out of this issue there are questions which need to be answered now why do i have to go chase them its simple state your position now if you are on the rpv council

M Richards said...

Howdy Confuscious,
Thank you for your comments. your apology is accepted.

In real life my name is Mark Wells. I also use M Richards as an alter ego who is the entertainer in me.

I am one of the fourteen members of Ms. Janice Hahn's Community Advisory Committee. The next meeting of this committee will be on January 11, 2007 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in San Pedro. You are most welcome to attend the meeting and even make a public comment, it you choose.

On January 18, 2007, there will be an Open Forum where the committee members and Mr. Bisno and his staff, and representatives of Ms. Hahn and the City Plan Department will listen and take input from anyone who wishes to speak on any issue concerning Ponte Vista. You are most welcome to let everyone know what your opinions are.

If you want to see what I look like, you might get a chance if an article about this blog appears in More San Pedro. If the article doesn't appear, then we can meet on January 11.

I have written my opinions throughout the entire blog and have specifically set aside two posts that give my opinions about what should happen at Ponte Vista and why I feel my conclusions should be viewed favorably by real decision makers. I am not an elected official or an employee of any government agency.

You can read my feeling, conclusions, and reasonings by going to "Whay I Support R1 at Ponte Vista" and "The Ugly Truths".

I am the only member of the committee who has a blog and so far, I am the only member of the committee who has publically announced my current stance on the subjects surrounding Ponte Vista.

I did not produce any portion of the DEIR or any other study for that matter.

I have no authority to provide any "official" answers you might be looking for.

If there are questions that I feel I want clarification on, answers to, or arguments with, I try to get the answers on my own. I do supply information on my blog that I feel is in everyone's best interest.

I do not have the time or initiative to "chase after" answers to everyone's questions. I work full-time and I actually do have a life outside my endeavors with Ponte Vista and all the troubles it could create.

If I am not doing a satisfactory job in your opinion, then perhaps you might think about starting a blog of your own. It is free to do and anyone can start one. I do feel, however that this blog provides an important place where supporters and detractors of Mr. Bisno's plans can come and debate and learn a thing or two.
MW