Each post I write comes with the opportunity to comment on what is written, or even what is not written. Comments are encouraged from everyone and everyone can remain anonymous if they choose.
The post dealing with the possibility that something "stinkin" might be going on, brought out some interesting and worthwhile comments, in my opinion.
"tom" commented at length on several occasions to the particular post. It appears he is a supporter of Mr. Bisno's plans to build 2,300 homes in Ponte Vista.
I sincerly welcome posts and comments from supporters of Mr. Bisno's concepts and I encourage more supporters to contribute their thoughts and concerns with folks who do not support Mr. Bisn's plans.
What I don't want to read is name calling, bashing, or "haters" anywhere on this blog. One push of my finger on the left button of my mouse, and all comments will be stopped and this becomes a one-way blog which doesn't serve the purpose of trying to find the best outcome for everyone concerned with Ponte Vista.
"mellonhead" has commented on other posts. Both mellonhead and tom are welcome to supply entire posts of their own creation and if the posts follow my four "Rs", then I will gladly publish them.
At the end of this post I will remind everyone of more facts about the DEIR.
With respect, we can all agree to disagree.
(tom's first comment below is his initial comment to my post, "Stinkin".
tom said...
Excuse my being candid, but I wish you would figure out which side of the fence you are on. Or, if you are truly "un-biased" as you have claimed, then stay on the fence where you belong.
Despite your claims of being even-handed, for the most part your posts are barely disguised as anti-Ponte Vista. Which is your good right. Except don't bill yourself as neutral and then trash the proposed development and everything associated with it.
You can't seem to stay on point and this harms all of us. The question of the high school was answered. I was there, I heard it. We are supposed to be commenting on the DEIR in front of us now. NOT something which MIGHT be. Like Bisno said at the last meeting, if the school pursues eminent domain, then this document is tossed out and we start from the beginning. So GET OVER IT!
Secondly, you and your running your numbers....my God! Since when have you become a certified city planner? How do you even know that you are reading this thing correctly? It is 9 inches of techno-babble. Your plucking numbers out of it and doing your calculations is more than ludicrous.
AND you forget that this document, the DEIR, was written by the City Planning Department. So if something doesn't jibe, it is on them. Why don't you throw some criticism their way? Do you really think we can trust the City?
All you are doing with your hare-brained ideas (light-rail system, road through Navy proprty to an off-ramp, etc. none of which are included in the scope of this DEIR!) and picking at minutiae is making all of us seem unable to give competent, reasonable input into the planning process.
Remember? This is what Janice Hahn picked you guys for; to represent us.
From what I've seen so far, it's like the Keystone Kops. You are destroying any credibility that the citizenry can partake in this process and not muck it up. You can be certain that if we are perceived as not being to get out of our own way, this is the last Advisory Committee that will ever be convened.
Some of us would like some input into how our neighborhoods will change by what is going to happen at Ponte Vista. But right now our "representatives" are too caught up in their own self-importance to realize the train is leaving the station.
8:25 PM
12:42 AM
M Richards said...
Howdy, especially to Tom.
First Anonymouses, please don't pick on Tom. He has every right and he feels his responsibility to comment on whatever is written in this blog. I am interested in reading input from all sides.
Tom, Please take the time to read this entire blog. I know the posts are very long. The facts I write as facts can be backed up by documentation that I have stored and can supply to anyone who questions the facts I have posted.
Take a look at the first couple of posts that date back to the beginning of this blog. There you will find more facts.
I continue to write that I am attempting to keep this blog as objective as I can. Nobody on the committee is totally objective on the subject or they probably wouldn't serve and face criticisims from all sides of the issue.
I have written and admitted in the committee meetings and other public venues that I am the creator of the black R-1 buttons that some folks wear. With that being written, I have never seen objectivity from the Ponte Vista staff towards ideas that are different from Mr. Bisno's vision.
This blog is has been intended to provide the largest population with the most accurate information that is not available on pontevista.com. If anyone is interested in reading posts on a blog that is very criticle of Mr. Bisno's plans, then please visit www.laharbor.blogspot.com. It is better known as Life on the Edge.
Tom, I wish you would also read the Scoping report of the DEIR as well as as much of the DEIR as you can. You may be able to help me figure out why the scoping report mentioned a population of 7,343 at Ponte Vista, while the DEIR states that the estimated population would be 4,313.
The number of homes in Ponte Vista is relevant. But so is the actual number of people that will live in the homes. As relevant as the number of homes and the number of residents, are the actual estimated number of vehicles that will call Ponte Vista home.
If the Traffic and Transportation study proposes 5,750 vehicle parking spaces inside Ponte Vista, is that based on a residential population of 4,313? It is based on the number of homes (2,300) proposed for the site.
But if the population projection is off by as much as 3,030 people, then the number of parking spaces required would need to be dramatically increased.
Tom is correct in the fact that the DEIR informs everyone why the high school is not studied very much in the DEIR. The chief L.A. City Planner for this project spoke at the first meeting of the committee and suggested that the committee avoid dealing with the proposed 2,025 seat school.
Fair enough. But may I continue to remind everyone about the L.A.U.S.D. and the Belmont Learning Center. L.A.U.S.D. will do whatever it wants to do and there is little any of us can do about that at this time other than not burying our heads in the sand and acknowledging that this "elephant in the living room" still looms over Mr. Bisno's project. Ignoring SRHS #14 will only do harm to both the supporters and opponents to Mr. Bisno's plans.
Tom, you have the right to attack me and my blog. May I ask why you support Mr. Bisno's plans, if you do? What is wrong with a new road connecting Western Avenue to Gaffey Street and then onto the Harbor Freeway. If you have ever seen me talk with Mr. Bisno, you would see we converse well with each other and we both agree that such a road would benefit all of us.
To everyone, yes I write very long posts and comments. I try to give everyone the best overall information I can and I do my very best to keep the facts separate from my opinions and to back up every fact I use. Am I biased? Sure. Do I sit on the fence? No, not really. I am only fence sitting to provide both sides of the fence the best information I can. Should I remain on the Committee? I serve at the pleasure of Ms. Hahn and the majority of the members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council. Dick Brunner, Lucie Thorsen, were appointed to represent the interests of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and the larger community we all live in. Would I attack individual supporters of Mr. Bisno? Heck no! I want to know why folks support and oppose Mr. Bisno's plans.
Please remember when you read the DEIR and other documents regarding the site, including the proposal for the high school: Is it reasonable, realistic, responsible, and respectful?MW
3:44 AM
tom said...
Mark, Well thank you for at least saying I have the right to express my opinion. Even though we may differ in our opinions, at least we can agree we each have the right to express them. These others feel if you are not in lock-step with them, you are somehow a traitor to San Pedro.
Perhaps the use of "hare-brained" was a bit rash. I retract that statement.
Nonetheless, while I agree with you that the number of units and cars is relevant, why aren't you busting the chops of the Planning Department and the LADOT? They are the one's who published the numbers.
I am frustrated with the lack of forward motion. Just think about it for a moment. If you wanted to put a gazebo in your back, it is your good right. After all it is YOUR property and you can pretty much build what you want as long as it conforms to building codes. Why is it suddenly different for a developer? Of course he has to jump through a lot more hoops than you or I. But it is still HIS property!
Something is going to be built there. The members of the Advisory Committee have yet to offer anything constructive about what they would like to see. There is this negative attitude which pervades the meetings and does not contribute to the mission at hand. All I hear are criticisms without any alternative suggestions to replace the things people don't like.
To Anonymouses - BTW, what does it matter if I wore a yellow sticker or a black button? I'm still entitled to voice my opinions.
8:35 AM
tom said...
1. Continuing to discuss SRHS #14 is a waste of time. No one is going to forget that the elephant is in the room. But until the elephant actually takes some action, agonizing over "what if" is useless.
2. The traffic study specifies 5,750 parking spaces (2.5 per unit). This does not equate to vehicles or trips. At least Bisno is recognizing that people have vehicles, unlike LAUSD who proposes to build SRHS#14 with NO parking for students. Merely enough for teachers and staff.
3. The Scoping Statement is just that, the first initial summary thrown out for public comment. Forget it. It is history. The document you have before you, the DEIR, trumps anything previously published.
There IS a difference in the number of residents. Unfortunately, nowhere in the scoping statement does it specify what they used as an assumption for number of members of a household. The DEIR spells it out. Household size for non-restricted housing = 2.0, age-restricted housing = 1.5. This averages a household size of 1.88 for the entire project in the DEIR as opposed to 3.19 in the scoping document original assumptions by Bisno.
There could be an entire range of reasons for this. Perhaps Bisno thought couples would move in and have babies (there's a strange concept) and included them in the calculations? Maybe the Planning Department thought it should be limited to actual live people moving in and not include projections for population growth?
However, in any event, it sounds like a question to be brought up at the next meeting. Silly me to think that a question should be clarified before everyone starts screaming that the sky is falling.
9:52 AM
mellonhead said...
Andrea Adleman quoting Gale Goldberg of the L.A. City Planning Commission in More San Pedro last Saturday."I've asked myself the question, is real planning possible in L.A.? I think it is, if two constituent groups are behind it. We won't be successful without both of them.
Number one, the community and the neighborhood councils have to be supportive of real planning and I think they are. Communities want real planning because they need to know what is going to happen in their community and right now they don't.
"People complain and say, 'Oh, the neighborhood councils are against every project.' Under the system we have here, I think a logical response by neighborhood councils is to be against every project because you have no idea what the next one is going to be.
"Number two, the plan needs to have the support of the development community, meaning it's real. [Developers need to know that] when they look at a plan and they look at a zone, that's what we want.
"In every other city in this country, the zone on the land establishes the value of the land. That's the highest and best use.
"If it's industrially zoned land, it's worth $20 or $30 a square foot. In Los Angeles, that's not true.
"The value of the land is not based on what the zone says or what the plan says. It's based on what that developer believes he can change the zone to.
"That is disastrous for this city. Disastrous.
"I have to believe that the developers are getting sick of this. I have developers who come in to me and say, 'I bought this industrial land. I paid conversion prices,' -- meaning they didn't pay $20 or $30; they paid $100 -- and I say to them, 'Can you spell speculation?
'"And they say, 'But, you've always done it. You've always converted.
'"I'm sorry, zoning has to mean something in this city."As we all know, the "Ponte Vista" property is zoned R-1 re-affirmed by the 1998-99 San Pedro Re-Use Committee and the Los Angeles City Council.
**********************************************************
I need to remind tom and everyone else some true facts about the DEIR.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) published for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development was NOT written by the Los Angeles City Planning Department.
Mr. Bisno and his development company contracted with Christopher A. Joseph & Associates to prepare the DEIR on behalf of the City Planning Department, and everyone else interested in the project. Mr. Bisno and his company paid Christopher A. Joseph & Associates for the DEIR.
It is customary and normal for the developer to select a company to produce the DEIR and aid the City Planning Department with reviewing the documents, studies, findings, and other matters. To suggest that members of the Los Angeles City Planning Department authored the document is an error. To condemn the L.A. City Planning Department for anything in the DEIR is also an error.
The Planning Department does not have the money, facilities, and capabilities to produce DEIRs for large developments. They rely on companies contracted by developers to study, produce, and publish a DEIR like the one produced for Ponte Vista.
It would also be very wrong to suggest that because Mr. Bisno paid Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, that company would be predisposed to make findings in the interest of their client. It would be a disservice by people to try to invalidate the DEIR based on who paid for the DEIR. I am confidant that Christopher A. Joseph & Associates made a very honest attempt at producing the best DEIR for the project.
Questioning the findings, studies, methodologies, facts, figures, and results of the document is not only encouraged, it is essential. It would be a great error to take all the facts produced in the DEIR as truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
tom is correct when he claims that I am not a city planner. I am an interested neighbor to the project who has over 51 years of life experienced in the area.
tom is concerned with whether the committee is "moving forward." I feel we are.
The fourteen committee members volunteered and were appointed to act a little like a jury for the benefit of the community. While we will never render a judgment or a verdict, we are "tryers of fact" and one of the avenues to question the process and the product with regards to the development.
Not only are we asked to learn the facts, we are also tasked with determining which facts can be believed, proved, or are falacious.
We are only asked to make recommendations at the end of our mission. To get to those recommendations, we must learn as much as we can from all sources so we can make intelligent, informed, and worthy recommendations for the benefit of everyone in the community.
Both the supporters and opponents of the project have facts they feel are true and most important. Many of these facts are in direct opposition to facts produced by the other side. The committee are representatives of the community who are asked to judge which facts to believe and which facts to question. I hope tom and other supporters don't find themselves in lock-step with all the facts produced in the DEIR. It would also be wrong for the strict R-1 supporters to be in lock-step with the facts they base their conclusions on.
The DEIR has been out less than one month. Mr. Bisno and the Planning Department have allowed more than the 90-day comment period so that everyone has a chance to comment with their own views on the project.
To tom, other supporters, and opponents, it is my job to question all aspects of the project. If I can't make informed decisions about recommendations, then I shouldn't be on the committee.
If I can't question what I feel are problems between what the DEIR reports, other documents reveal, and facts as I know them to be, then I wouldn't be representing the folks living in eastern Rancho Palos Verdes and the community on the whole, as well as I should.
I continue to have serious problems with some of the "facts" presented in the DEIR and it is important to learn the real truth before we recommend anything at Ponte Vista.
10 comments:
Mark,
As I thought I stated before, I've pored over the Scoping Statement and the relevant sections of the DEIR. We agree on where the population numbers come from in the DEIR. However, I cannot find any source or reference (e.g. household size) for where the 7,343 came from in the Scoping Statement. That would be a great question to raise on Thursday.
On another point, just because I question some of your conclusions, or have different opinions, doesn't mean I am automatically a Bisno supporter. Perhaps I am waiting until more facts to come out before I decide which way to go and I would like things to be rational and considered before drawing conclusions. I don't appreciate being labeled one way or the other. When I decide, I'll be certain to post it.
As far as the DEIR, Christopher Joseph & Assoc. DOES work for the Planning Department and everything in the DEIR was reviewed by them (the Planning Department) before it was released. All Bisno does is pay their fees. The Planning Department is responsible for the content of the report and should be held accountable. Perhaps this should also be brought up and clarified on Thursday?
Howdy tom,
The 7,343 number came from responses to the NOP.
If Christopher A. Joseph & Associates are a subsidiary of the Planning Department, then I stand corrected by you. If, on the other hand it is similar to other companies that do work on behalf of the Planning Department, but are not city-owned, then they should have made that point clearer.
As you originally claimed that I could be thought of as a fence-sitter, I understand not wanting to be labled. If you feel I have mislabled you, I apologize.
Perhaps we can both agree that the DIER, the processes of the committees and the press have raised more questions that have been dealt with in the documents provided to the CAC and the public.
This period of time between the publishing of the DEIR and the November 30 deadline for commenting on the DEIR is probably the best time for our types of discussion and debate.
It is encouraging to note that you haven't made up your mind yet. Whatever proposal you finally feel is in the best interest of you, your family, your neighbors, and the whole community will be published on this blog.
My I also remind you that many people reading your comments might feel that you are a supporter of Mr. Bisno's current plans. You seem to take many of the items within the DEIR as unquestionable facts. I have also written that you might be a supporter as opposed to others who state that you are a supporter.
MW
Mark,
So let me get this straight because I feel like a bit of a ditz that I could not find the 7,343 number in the Scoping Statement.
You stated it was in one of the response to the NOP. Which means anyone who did not agree with the assumptions put forth in the NOP could have calculated this number as their estimate of the "real" population of Ponte Vista. Is this basically a correct statement?
If so, don't you think it is patently unfair to call Bisno, or the Planning Department, to task for a number which they neither generated nor published?
The reason I bring this up, is that at some point everyone on the committee has to be looking at the same set of data to reach any conclusions and make recommendations. If random data from unverified sources enters into the process it will make the job impossible.
tom,
The number 7,343 appears within the DEIR published earlier this month.
Included in the DEIR is the NOP and Initial Study for the project.
Please look at:
Technicial Appendices, Volume I,
Appendix I-1, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study.
Look at Environmental Checklist and Analysis:
Section 12, Population and Housing.
Beginning on Page 35 of the document, is the section I got the figure from.
On Page 36, first paragraph:
a) Potentially Significant Impact.
The proposed project would induce direct population growth by adding 2,300 multi-family residential units and approximately 7,343 new permanent residents to the project site.
The discussion continues to show that compared to the number that used to live in the area (I feel it is irrelevant to this issue) there would be a substantial increase in number of residences and residents. That is expected when you go from 245 units to 2,300 units.
Christopher A Joseph and Associates not only prepared the DEIR, they also prepared the NOP and Initial Study where the proposed population was written as approximately 7,343 permanent residents.
I apologize again if I misled anyone by claiming the 7,343 number was in the NOP. It is actually in the Inital Study.
I suspect that further reading of the appendices, may reveal the source of the claim that the residents of a 2,300 home Ponte Vista project would generate $101.5 million dollars annually to the economy in a five-mile radius of the project.
It would be patently unfair to take to task anyone who didn't generate figures they didn't actually generate. Christopher A. Joseph & Associates prepared the Initial Study for the Bisno Development organization.
I agree that at some point the committee is going to have to deal with trying to reach conclusions based on factual numbers and correct and trustworthy data.
7,343 is not a random population estimate.
4,313 is not a random population estimate.
2,300 was used in the DEIR and previous documents, it is not a random number.
$101.5 million dollars is not a random amount. It has been used in documents, and advertisements for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project.
The non-random numbers create a proposed population difference of approximately 3,030 residents. Is is fair for me to try to calculate the $101.5 million dollars based on which proposed population number given?
Is it fair to use numbers documented in the Initial Study that mirror numbers documented in the DEIR? What about numbers that differ?
tom, please don't feel bad about anything. The DEIR along with the Technicial Appendices produce a reading requirement that is monumental to even the most interested of readers.
Good luck to both of us in our further quests to read and understand what's in the entire DEIR.
MW
Mark,
Thank you for pointing out exactly where to find that number.
However, it reinforces my point that they did not give any frame of reference about where the 7,343 number came from (as in household size) like was done in the revised DEIR. Putting it in a framework of how many people they expect per household makes it easier for my pea-brain to grok.
So I have to disagree with you that the 7,343 is not random. It is, until they give some rationale by which they came to that number.
The 2,300 units obviously is not random, nor is the 4,313.
But, to quote Ricky Ricardo, "Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do." over why the switch from one number (7,343) in the Initial Study to a lower one (4,313) in the issued DEIR. No explanation, no logic, nothing. This is not a good thing.
Re. the $101.5 million - I suspect this comes from the same type of "handbook" put together for the number of (auto) trips generated. Someone, sometime, somwhere, crunched a bunch of numbers and came up with this "average" number given the number of residents.
Definitely some questions to be posed to the developer and to the Planning Department.
tom,
I haven't as yet found a frame of reference for the number of possible residents (7,343) as listed in the Initial Study.
The DEIR does use averages when producing the number, 4,313. However, those averages are different and less than surrounding communities as noted in the DEIR.
1.5 seniors per unit, and 2.0 residents in the non-age restricted units is less than the documented numbers for areas in the Wilmington/Harbor City and San Pedro planning areas. I will grant you that they claim to provide reasonings for these figures, but they only cause me to ask more questions:
What is the average number of residents per unit in "The Gardens" which is a nearby multiple-unit developmnet?
What are the population averages per unit in the surrounding condominium, townhome, and Patio Home developments?
Why was it not important to list like-numbered residential units in other large developments (Playa Vista, for example) in listing the average number of residents per unit?
What is the average number of residents/unit in a development the size of Park LaBrea?
The number 7,343 came from some one or somewhere in either the Bisno organization, Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, or a City Planning document or staffer. Just because I haven't, as yet, found the source documents that list where that figure came from, nobody can disagree that the number is not published in the DEIR and the Initial Study.
What is also going to take some question asking on my part, and more reading of the DEIR and the Appendices is that there seems to be something wrong with missing the estimate of population of permanents residents by up to 3,030. Intelligent planners shouldn't be that far off, in my opinion.
Why is the difference so important to me?
If the Initial Study, advertisements, quotes from Mr. Bisno and others, sales portfilios, and other documents proclaim a certain figure for economic spending, then what population was figured in determining that number.
Because I have not been able to find wording describing the methodology, and references for certain numbers, I suspect there are some figures that I can't find plausable at this time.
I would certainly like someone to help me find out why the differences are the way they are.
I am still wondering, but will not suggest in a derogatory manner, or accuse anyone of playing with the numbers the following thought that I still can't confirm or provide denial for.
I wonder if the economic input to the community within a five-mile radius, per year, is based on the spending of approximately 7,343 residents while the number of vehicles suggested within Ponte Vista is based on a population of approximately 4,313 permanent residents.
The Initial Study left transportation and traffic up to the "EIR" as quoted in the document, section 15. It is such a big issue and had two boxes marked as significantly impacting the DEIR, It was probably most correct to leave it to the study conducted after the July, 11, 2005 publishing of the Initial Study.
If, and I mean if, it can be shown that the projected population is off by up to approximately 3,030 permanent residents, then all the traffic and transportation section of the DEIR should probably be redone based on the possible added vehicles within Ponte Vista.
To suggest that there will only be a certain amount of vehicles in Ponte Vista based solely on the number of housing units in the project is incorrect and disengenuous.
2,300 homes never drive anywhere or buy anything. It is the residents who do the driving and the buying. Until we get a real handle on the approximate permanent number of residents living in a 2,300 unit development, even traffic shouldn't be studied.
I strongly feel that the number 4,313 is somewhat to much less that the actual population might be if a 2,300 home development is approved at Ponte Vista.
Now on to another question, tom.
Did you read and hear about the "hybrid scenario" that Mr. David Shender spoke about at the last meeting? Did you read the working paper committee members and others were given that included that alternative that is NOT in the DEIR?
What do you think about a development of 1,500 homes, 50% senior housing, and 50% non-age restricted?
Might this be a compromise between supporters of 2,300 homes and folks who are strictly R-1?
Were you surprised to have heard and read about this alternative in public? Do you thing it might be an alternative that is being brought up by Mr. Bisno and his staff as a way to change the minds of people?
I have said in public and written that I find this alternative interesting. Mr. Shender provided figures for traffic counts that would be only slightly higher than R1. For folks who are still counting vehicles, this may be important. I won't get back to counting vehicles until I get an understanding about approximate number of residents. The hybrid scenario aslo would give lower figures for population, whatever they are.
tom, I am asking you these questions about the hybrid scenario because I feel you have strong opinions and can be reasonable. Without any reservations, I truly want to know what you think about the hybrid scenario.
MW
I think everyone agrees that Bisno owns this land, but the thing most disagree about is the zoning. When you change zoning, you change the lay of the land. Why should Bisno be allowed to get such a big compromise on development. The zoning goes with that piece of land. He will make plenty of money with single family homes. If you allow this, then many developers will be in line to change the town of San Pedro. If he doesn't agree, then he should sell it!
Mark,
Well I'm glad I was delayed in getting the time to respond to your question. The post by anonymous adds an entirely new aspect.
But first your question. The "hybrid" scenario was a complete surprise and certainly not something I would have expected Bisno to introduce in such a public forum. IF the numbers regarding traffic counts are correct, it would indeed be a decent compromise. More senior housing is a good thing not just because there is a need, but because it actually does reduce traffic counts. Plus it does not add kids into the school system. This produces a win-win situation. They pay property taxes which support the schools, yet they don't add to the burden on the school. Add to that the disposable income seniors typically have and you might be able to get somewhere near the numbers Bisno uses as dollars spent in a five-mile radius. A bonus is the extra jobs seniors generate in home health care services and other related service in general.
But the Planning Department has gotten their panties in a wad over the option because it wasn't an official part of the DEIR. From what I've heard around town they have directed him to remove all references to it. Go figure. An option that some people actually like (or at least are interested in) and the Planning Department doesn't even want to discuss it.
As I said before, the people we need to be watching are the City. Of course we need to keep an eye on Bisno also because if he sees a way to make a buck he'll take it. But we know that since that is what developers do. But the City is supposed to be taking care of us. WRONG! They have their own agenda and we are too low on the food-chain for them to include us.
Of course all of this is subject to finding out where the heck they came up with the projected population, whether it be 7,343 or 6,313. I want to see all the basic assumptions which got them to those numbers.
Now to the post by anonymous who is absolutely correct. If Bisno doesn't like what he is allowed to build on the property, he can just sell it. And then we are REALLY screwed!!
Has anyone stopped to think through what that would mean? How many developers are out there who have to ability to pay $80 million for a property? Not very many. The most likely scenario is he would subdivide it and sell it off piece-meal.
I don't know about you, but I prefer the devil that I know vs. the devil I don't. I would not even hazard a guess as to how many parcels the 62 acres could be carved up into. But just for arguments sake, let's say 10. So now you have 10 different developers putting up 10 different styles of housing. Remember, this is something you said you disliked about Playa Vista. But beyond that, now you've got smaller projects that will attract less scrutiny and get through the planning process more easily. Plausibly you could have 10 developers putting up 10 buildings like the VUE. So now you've got 3,180 units (potentially more). AND since there are so many different projects, the City won't be able to saddle any one of them with the mitigation needed because of the cumulative effect of all the developments. Of course since it is being sold of piece-meal, the timing on the seperate projects will all be different so this would further hamper the City's ability to have them mitigate traffic, etc..
So the problem of developing that land just gets exacerbated by this scenario.
While Bisno might be abrasive and arrogant, and we might not like some of his answers, at least until now he has answered directly and honestly. I'd rather be dealing with him than god-knows-who, putting up god-knows-what.
tom,
I am glad you were suprized by the hybrid scenario, like many of us were.
Mr. Bisno has the option, if he chooses, to pull the recently published DEIR and his application for a zoning change and begin anew with an application and a DEIR for the hybrid scenario or any other proposal that is not currently mentioned in the DEIR. I'm quite sure the Planning Department doesn't give just one crack at developers' proposals.
My "reading between the lines" and "words not spoken" lend some availability to possible interpret the publication of the hybrid proposal as Mr. Bisno's first attempt at a compromise to his 2,300 home development.
However, I have to continue to write based on his proposal for 2,300 homes until I actually hear or read otherwise by Mr. Bisno or official reporting by his staff.
Devils tend to be bad whether we know them or not. Your paragraph suggesting that the site could be cut up into smaller portions if Mr. Bisno sells the property, is as irrevelant, in my opinion, as your claim that dealing with a 2,025 seat school is irrevelant at this time.
I don't see any probability at this time that Mr. Bisno would sell the property. If, and I mean if Mr. Bisno were to begin sales proceedures for any part of the property, I would suspect L.A.U.S.D. would be first in line, and back in court to acquire the 15.03 acre protion of the 24 acre study area within Ponte Vista where they are seeking to build the school.
As you and the rest of the readers of these posts and comments have found, I do question some of the basic facts presented by Mr. Bisno, his staff, Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, the L.A. City Planning Department, and other.
Your comment claims Mr. Bisno has answered (questions) "directly and honestly". He has answered one particular question I asked directly and honestly, but there are still questions that I am beginning to feel are misleading, and misrepresent facts about the proposed development.
Tonight's meeting may get a bit frustrating for some committee members and folks watching us do our job. It could get contentious between certain members of the committee, me included, and Mr. Bisno and his staff, because we have very direct questions that we expect direct, simple, and truthful answers to.
I can't sit back any longer and not know how many folks might end up living in Ponte Vista, the number of vehicles that will actually be in Ponte Vista, and the truest estimate of the yearly economic input in a five-mile radius of the project. Others on the committee want to know about traffic counts on Western, length of time sitting in traffic, the methodologies used in preparing the DEIR and how they differ from other methodologies, and other things.
I hope we get to hear some great answers and get to listen to thoughtful, reasonable comments during the public comment portion.
Please introduce yourself to me if you attend the meeting.
tom, thank you again for your many comments.
MW
Mark,
Looks like we both have insomnia.
It also seems we agree on most points. Perhaps I am too trusting, but my read on Bisno's ansers, when asked directly, have been straight-forward. Maybe I'm too naive.
Re. selling off the property as subdivide, at that point he would not care if LAuSD was first in line since he will have given up on the idea of building ther at all. I is the balance of the property, sold to differnt developers, that I worry about. Don't forget, LASUD will provide NO mitigation for the traffic they generate.
Otherwise I think we are looking for the same thing. It is enjoyable to exchange ideas and opinions in such a civil and rational way. You are correct, let's see what happens tonight. I should be interesting.
Post a Comment