In today's Daily Breeze, Donna Littlejohn wrote an article about last Thursday's Community Advisory Committee Meeting. One of the issues she wrote about she called the "hybrid scenario."
I use "hybrid alternative" for the same idea, and I am writing this post to gauge whether this alternative to building 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista might be an alternative that can be thought of as the compromise.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report for a project or development must contain, by mandate, alternatives to the project requested by the developer. Section VI of the Ponte Vista DEIR lists four alternatives in the report, along with studies and analysis of each alternative.
The four alternatives listed in the DEIR are:
Alternative A: No Project Alternative/Single-Family Homes (in essence, R-1 zoning.)
Alternative B: Increased Percentage of Senior Housing
Alternative C: 1,700 Units (26 Percent Reduction)
Alternative D: Alternative sites (The project being built somewhere else)
What is NOT in the DEIR is an alternative written in a "working paper" supplied to the Community Advisory Committee, and spoken about by the Traffic Engineer for Mr. Bisno's development.
"The Hybrid Alternative"
1,700 condominiums, 50% age-restricted, 50% non age-restricted.
Could this alternative be the compromise between folks who insist on "R-1" single-family detached homes and folks who want a project similar envisioned by Mr. Bisno?
Did Mr. Bisno allow this alternative to be floated to the committee and the public because the number "2,300" is just too big for Ponte Vista?
Why wasn't this alternative dealt with in the original DEIR?
Who can, and will, get behind this idea?
Is this the best alternative for northwest San Pedro and eastern Rancho Palos Verdes?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I hope everyone reading this have comments, questions, and reactions to this alternative.
It seemed strange to me last Thursday, listening to an engineer bringing up an alternative that wasn't even in the DEIR. It got me thinking that PERHAPS Mr. Bisno was allowing his traffic engineer the flexibility to bring out what may be Mr. Bisno's own compromise.
The traffic engineer led the committee through the working paper that seemed to show that traffic counts for the "hybrid alternative" would be just slightly higher than R-1 traffic. I think all the traffic mitigation for this alternative would be accomplished, unlike much of the mitigation that would not be done under R-1 zoning.
Some things the "hybrid alternative" would allow that the original proposal has some trouble with are things like building heights, open spaces, and the issue of a possible high school being built at Ponte Vista.
Mr. Bisno could build 1,700 units on land left over if the L.A.U.S.D. were successful in obtaining 15.03 acres for their 2,025 seat senior high school. As the DEIR correctly pointed our, there would be no way to build 2,300 homes and a 2,025 seat school on the 61.53 acres and have any chance of mitigating traffic.
Mr. Bisno has also said, in the past, that he might be willing to talk to the L.A.U.S.D. about welcoming a much smaller academy-sized high school into Ponte Vista.
It became apparent during our visit to Playa Vista, that most of us on the trip, including Mr. Bisno, did not like four-story buildings alongside the major roads. The "hybrid alternative" would allow shorter buildings close to Western Avenue and taller buildings set back farther into the development.
Open space may also be helped by 600 fewer units. Perhaps the storm drain culvert on the south side of the property can be made to look like a natural creek, complete with crawdads and stepping stones.
I am intrigued by this alternative. I have a feeling it was "thrown" out as a trial balloon to see how many folks would grab at the string. It certainly could use the same kind of scrutiny that the four listed alternatives received. I think it deserves comment from supporters of Mr. Bisno's plans and folks who object to 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista.
Could this be the compromise that is best for the area?????
15 comments:
1700 a compromise? The noise and air pollution caused by 1700 units equals 500 units? Common sense says NO! But the government says Yes! And they know what is best. Besides, look at the extra tax money that will be collected.
My comment above contains 61 acres of sarcasm.
Howdy Mellonhead,
What about the .53 acres?
MW
1,700 is good. 1,400 is better. 1,200 is best, though that's probably pushing it.
1,700 is probably what Bisno had in mind in the first place. I'm not the first to say it, but it's a typical strategy by developers.
Go in with a plan that has no chance of success. Get the opposition to expend energy attacking that proposal. Then let slip the real plan, which gives local opposition a perceived victory - when in fact it was the developer's original plan all along.
Is 1,700 the best deal we in the community can get? Maybe. It's a tough question. I don't envy you guys on the commission, that's for sure.
The answer to your question: NO.
Why 1700? Why not 1500, 1400, or 1000 (or less)? If the developer overpaid for the property and needs to cram as much as he can onto it to boost his profit, well, that's HIS problem. And to remind you, this impacts all of SP, not just the N/W part.
Lets think about one thing, whether its 1700 or 2300. Seniors are not very mobile, and if they still are it is certainly not during rush hour. The more that Ponte Vista provides for them as far as self-containment, the less they will need to drive elsewhere. Before you begin to complain about the traffic impact, I think you should exclude these people.
Ok and this is going to be off-color but I'll say it anyway.
Someone else complained about the funeral traffic. Well, Ponte Vista has that covered too because all they need to do is wheel the gurney across the street!
Thank you Kris and Anonymous for your comments.
I am glad this post is being read and commented on.
I can understand that peak travel hours MIGHT be favorably impacted with this alternative compared to the original plan and alternatives B and C, or 2 and 3.
Mr. Bisno would want everyone to know that the age-restricted housing, whatever the number may be sold to "active" seniors, many still working and many still very mobile.
One of my concerns with this type of age-restricted housing and the income level required to buy both types of homes in Ponte Vista (age-restricted and non age-restricted) is where are the motor homes, boats, toy haulers, and other vehicles that won't be allowed street parking, going to be stored.
Kris, Humor is good. If you are into humor, here is my first comment about one of my other blogs. Try reading "Caveman Dairy" and hopefully, you'll get a chuckle and identify some males you know.
MW
to anonymous 8:24 a.m.:
i never said it didn't impact all of san pedro. but you're dreaming if you think you can get bisno to cut his project down to 1,200 units.
utterly dreaming. but give it a shot buddy, waste as much time as you want, it's not my problem.
6:41 says "i never said it didn't impact all of San Pedro." Re-read M. Richards post closely pal. And by the way, the development on this land should not be INCREASED to 1200, 1700 or whatever.
anonymous 10:37 - good luck buddy, but you're out to lunch if you think bisno is going to give anybody the time of day who advocates a plan that doesn't maximize his profits.
so as i said before, good luck with your dreams of 800-1000 units. he's going to shove at least 1,400 down our throats. at least.
2400, 1700, 1200, 500, or even the 245 units that's there now it's going to create a bigger traffic mess on Western. Remember, there's NOBODY living on the Ponte Vista property now. It's been almost 10 years since anyone has lived there. I just don't see how any of this can work without destroying the quality of life of the surrounding community. It doesn't make sense. Oh yeah! don't forget the high school
to M. Richards -
Can you post the link to Donna's article?
Tahnks
Howdy Anonymous 9:49 AM,
The article is stored in the archives at www.dailybreeze.com.
It can be purchased from them.
I don't know how long the article will remain in the archives. The article is copyrighted so I can't put it on this blog.
MW
OOPS!!!!
My bad. I am sorry anonymous 9:49 AM, I forgot about one heck of a great blog where you can go and look at the article.
Look up on the right side of my blog and click on "Life on the Edge" Once you get there, look for the great post concerning the article. You can click on the word "article" and presto! There it is.
I guess I was having a brain-fart when I forgot about Banditos Yanquis' posting. LotE is fourth favorite blog in the world. I even like it more than Talking Points Memo and Liberal Oasis. Of course, I have to give a shout out to this blog and my other two blogs, but Life on the Edge is a great "Pedro" blog. MW
Post a Comment