I did some more searching and found some more figures that are relevant to the development.
The population and financial impact of the proposed development, delivered by a gentleman during the November 30 Committee meeting, left me with more questions than answers and results that I found, frankly, unbelievable.
In the previous post, I found through using numbers supplied to me by Mr. Bisno himself, (Again, thank you Mr. Bisno for our mini-meeting) that I could now get a handle on the number of bedrooms that may be built in the 2,300-home configuration as this project is currently planned.
Knowing the number of bedrooms does not by itself, allow me to know how many people may actually live at Ponte Vista. But it sure is a great, concrete first start at finding some reality amid all the statistics listed in the DEIR.
Getting back into the DEIR, we are told average numbers of residents per unit in the two parts of the development.
The DEIR uses a set of statistical analysis to establish the following estimation;
1.5 residents per unit in the age-restricted portion of Ponte Vista.
2.0 residents per unit in the non-age restricted portion of Ponte Vista.
Do you believe these numbers are even near a ballpark? Neither do I.
So I went searching for supportable statistics as to the actual household numbers that are factual in the area.
The first place I looked was the City of Los Angeles' Planning Department Web site.
In this site I learned the following information:
In the Wilmington/Harbor City Community Plan area, This is the plan Ponte Vista would fall under, the following "resident population/unit was listed:
All units 3.53 Resident Population per Unit (RP/U)
Single Family Units 3.67 RP/U
Multiple Family Units 3.50 RP/U
Non-Single-Family Units 3.43 RP/U
In the San Pedor Community Plan area, the following "resident population/unit was listed:
All Units 2.56 RP/U
Single Family Units 2.79 RP/U
Multiple Family Units 2.42 RP/U
Non-Single-Family Units 2.41 RP/U
Using statistics reported in the 2000 Federal Census, I learned, from the Los Angeles County Web site the following;
Persons per Household (All Units)in the County of Los Angeles was 2.98 RP/U
Persons per Household (All Units) in the State Of California was 2.87 RP/U
Viewing the figures purported to be true in the Ponte Vista DEIR is as follows;
Average number of residents per senior unit is 1.5 RP/U
Average number of residents per non-age restricted unit is 2.0 RP/U
Average number of residents per unit in the combined Ponte Vista site is 1.875 RP/U
There is a difference in the reported number of residents per unit in the Plan Areas, County of Los Angeles, and State of California compared to the projected number of residents per unit at Ponte Vista.
The problem with the number of residents per unit is that I don't know which statistic to believe. I don't believe the numbers generated in the DEIR. They are far too low as opposed to the numbers supported in other studies.
The number of proposed bedrooms that we finally have calculations for suggest that, even though many bedrooms may be used as offices and guest rooms, there are still more bedrooms planned than projected residents.
The revelations that took me and others by surprize is that Mr. Bisno is planning to build approximately 173 four-bedroom homes and that 60% of the homes in the non-age restricted area may have three bedrooms each.
I don't know how many people may live in a loft. I suspect that perhaps most of those units will house only one person. I also suspect that the studio type of home will also hold just one resident. But some owners of lofts could put up screens and have more people living in them.
I will now create my prediction of the possible population of Ponte Vista using calculations found in the Wilmington/Harbor City and San Pedro Community Planning areas.
I am going to average the two figures stated as the resident population per unit in the Multiple Family category. 3.50 + 2.42 = 5.92 5.92 divided by 2 equals my estimate of approximately 2.96 residents per unit.
Now to be fair to Mr. Bisno, I need to factor in the differences between the age-restricted housing average and the non-age restricted average.
To accomplish this estimation, I divided 2.96 by 4 and got .74 as a factoring number.
Then I tripled the .74 factoring number because 1/4 of the development is age restricted and 3/4 of the development is non-age restricted.
my prediction of the average number of residents per unit in the currently planned 2,300 home development is a MINIMUM of 2.22 residents per unit or 2.22 RP/U
2.22 RP/U times 2,300 homes is equal to an estimated minimum of 5,106 permanent residents living at Ponte Vista at San Pedro. That is my minimum estimation for 2,300 homes. Other folks are most welcome to calculate what they believe the population may be. I used numbers supported by factual analysis and I leaned in favor towards Mr. Bisno's side.
I also lived a monk's life while dealing with Traffic and Transportation. I made calculations, estimations, and other non-scientific studies to formulate my opinion on the number of cars that may actually be at Ponte Vista.
The DEIR statisticians chose, for reasons they used, to allow for 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling for residents and 0.5 parking spaces per unit for visitors.
I figured numbers, units, spaces, and things to estimate that each resident would have 1.333 vehicles factored into the total estimated number of cars at Ponte Vista.
Using 5,106 estimated residents having, on average, 1.333 vehicles per resident (including visitor spaces) give me a minimum total of 6,806.298 vehicles at Ponte Vista, not counting staff and employees vehicles.
So as unscientific as I am, but with a simple brain and the ability to read, deduce, and run my fingers over a calculator, here are my estimates for minimum numbers:
5,106 Residents
6,806 Vehicles
You are all welcome to prove me wrong by supplying your own figures and the supporting documents to back up your estimates.
9 comments:
I wish somebody asked mr. silvern whether he has ever determined a project he was working on would have an adverse economic impact?
Howdy Anonymous 8:09,
You have a good question that I didn't think to ask. I'm glad you mentioned his name because I wasn't paying attention when his name was given.
I read the section the gentleman was referring to about fiscal impact and I have to claim that I don't believe his projections are based on what is actually happening in the area.
As far as an adverse economic impact on anyone, I can make a pretty good case that I, along with anyone living in R.P.V., not owning a business in the area, and having to use the same commercial spaces future residents of Ponte Vista will use, will have at least a small adverse impact on my wallet.
I'll be idling my car waiting for a parking space to open up, sitting stopped in traffic trying to head north or south on Western Avenue. If supply and demand is used, then perhaps local restaurants might charge higher prices because they are much more full of patrons. Little things tend to add up.
I can't write about folks impacted, while living in San Pedro or Harbor City or other towns. I'll leave it up to those residents to chime in with their opinions.
MW
there's a great article on the economic impacts of the project in random length's june 23 issue.
yes, that is true -- but the point i was trying to make is that no economist hired by a developer to analyze a project will ever return with an answer that says the project will have a negative impact on the economy.
Mark,
Well I have to give you kudos for digging up all the data from the various studies.
In keeping with your stated objectives for this blog, I do not want to "prove you wrong". I merely wish I couldget you to see that you are being overly pessimistic about certain numbers.
Let's face it, we could sit here for the next year generating numbers and the Planning people would counter with yet more of their numbers.
At some point, one has to apply some common sense. Is someone who just bought their own loft going to put up "screens" and turn it into a dormitory? No. They are going to turn it into a page from an Ikea catalog. Remember, this is their "entry level" home. They will want to sell it for a profit and step up to something larger when they are ready to get married and start having kids.
Are seniors who are down-sizing from huge homes going to go to the other end of the range to some tiny little space that is almost apartment. No. They want something smaller, but they still want to feel spacious. When you have a 2,600 sq.ft. home and you down-size because all the kidds are gone, you still don't want to got to 950 sq.ft. I couldn't. I've got a daughter who will visit. And, hopefully soon, grandkids too. I'm certain most of the folks in the age-restricted section are in the same boat.
As you said yourself in the comments on a previous post, your own home has had varying configurations. Why would Ponte Vista be any different?
At some point you have to stop trying to analyze every single permutation and go with a set of basic numbers on which to base the calculations. You can't worry whether Johnny lost his job and has to move back in with Mom & Dad until he gets back on his feet. Do you see what I mean?
In this case, the numbers were dictatd by the Los Angeles City Planning Department. In their wisdom, they felt San Pedro would best be served by using the 2.0 RP/U for non-age restricted and 1.5 RP/U for age-restricted.
Now please let me throw in another factor which might tie some of these things together with the economic impacts.
If anyone has been paying attention, the current review of the San Pedro General plan EMPHASIZES THE REVITALIZATION OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA. (sorry to use all caps, but I can't figure out the html tags) In the past the reason we have not seen economic benefit come back to us (and I'm talking about housing, not about Port-related construction - they don't buy things a "normal" neighborhood business would sell) is that we don't have that many places for San Pedro residents to spend their money. A revitalized downtown would give us that. A quichey, "old-town" type place. Sort of like they have in San Diego where Gail Goldberg just came from. Wow! Flash! And what type of housing did her department approve to be put up all around the newly-developed old-town? Nice, spacious housing with low numbers of residents per unit.
Don't you think this is too much of a coincidence to ignore? Don't you think that this type of planning would have influenced them to chose the numbers they did for RP/U for Ponte Vista?
And to add another factor, has anyone been paying attention to Gail's championing of a light rail system (like they have in San Diego). Then people all over town, not just Ponte Vista, could leave their cars parked and take a tram downtown.
Why do you think Mayor V. hired her? He wants to change the face of Los Angeles and ths is the way to begin.
But change is difficult. People want the San Pedro of 1953. But unfortunately time marches on. The state and city have grown and we no longer have the luxury of "putting green" front yards and fields for backyards. And there will be some snafus along the way. But nontheless I think this is the first step toward a new and better, more vibrant and alive San Pedro.
I would have liked to have ended there, but I know people will take it as meaning Ponte Vista. To be specific, I mean both Ponte Vista to give us the numbers of people with disposable income and the revitalization of downtown to give them someplace to spend it and keep the money here in local businesses. I, for one, would much rather spend my money at a locally owned and operated store instead of some huge national chain. I'm certain there are others who would also, given the opportunity.
Okay, now I'm done with my rant and hunkering down for the wave of angry criticism I know is coming.
Okay Tom. What I and probably most opponents of the Bisno project don't understand is why the need for such "revitalization" and huge increases in population in San Pedro? Population wise, it is already ridiculous. Let's not forget the popluation growth was the result of the development of all the town homes, condos and apartments that occurred in the '70s and '80s. Most people believe we are at critical mass and I really don't care what statistics are thrown at me, we know reality is what we have experienced in the past couple of decades, and it ain't good. Statistics can be manipulated to tell you anything you want to project, just as Mark's calculations have shown. I would be in favor of showing stats that show worst case senario in order to combat Bisno's stats. Both calculations are probably sound, statistically, but it points out the radical swings in numbers one way or the other. Statistics are NOT reality. They are full of assumptions that we will pay for if we are not careful. Simple logic (based on historical reality) tells you that big developments equal negative impacts on the quality of life for all the current residents. San Pedro WAS a better place when I and my brother and sisters grew up here in the '50s, '60s and '70s. I want to preserve as much of this as possible for my kids.
Thank you Mark for being a champion in this battle of statistics! For those in favor of Bisno's project, if you have lived here for a long time, don't forget what it was like before all the developers came in here and "improved" our community and local economy. And for those who are newcomers, you should listen very carefully to the people who have been here to see the results of all the other Bob Bisno's of the past.
And by the way, this town is doing just fine economically. We have enough people to keep businesses alive and well. I say we just clean up San Pedro (not condense) and keep what we have left of the small town charm that attracted all these well-intentioned newbees here in the first place.
My rant/criticism (not angry).
Anthony K.
tom,
can you clarify your comments about ms. goldberg?
"And to add another factor, has anyone been paying attention to Gail's championing of a light rail system (like they have in San Diego). Then people all over town, not just Ponte Vista, could leave their cars parked and take a tram downtown."
where and when, may i ask, has she been doing this?
oh, one other question. Tom, are you on Ponte Vista's advisory committee? or are you in the employ of the developer?
Great points Anthony K.
I, and many of my neighbors, agree with you.
Post a Comment