The following contribution is from Mr. Steve Kerr. It is a letter he sent to representatives of the City of Los Angeles.
After I read the letter I engaged Mr. Kerr with an Email discussion concerning several points he brought up. I will include that "discussion" after the entire text of the letter.
I want to thank Mr. Kerr for his letter, and even though we may have differences of opinions, I found his letter to be very thoughtful and encouraging in that, even if someone supports larger developments, they do not necessarily file lock-step behind the developer. Some individuals very concerned about our community can make suggestions and comments that help the overall discussion and be more open-minded than many other supporters of Mr. Bisno's current proposal.
__________________________________________
I am writing to comment on the PonteVista project in San Pedro. I am writing in support of the project, but with a few caveats.
I think it is important to look at the larger picture of how we develop housing and our communities. Our population is going to continue to grow as long as we have children. There is an ever-increasing demand for housing due to this growth. This demand is not going to change anytime soon.
This demand can be met in 2 ways; conventional R1 development, encouraging urban sprawl, increased traffic congestion, longer commute times, more pollution and a decrease in the quality of our lives. The alternative is dense R3 development allowing higher population densities in smaller areas. The obvious problem with this, and the main objection to the PonteVista project, will be the extra traffic on already congested local roads. I will deal with this issue a little later.
On the plus side, R3 development such as Ponte Vista will offer lower priced housing, allowing our children to buy homes in the area and not move to Palmdale creating more urban sprawl. This also allows Retail, commercial space, parkland and public space to be within walking or bicycling distance of residents. This increases sense of community, safety and quality of life. This should be a harbinger of how we change the way we build our communities.
I wholeheartedly support this concept, but in order for it to work we must address the traffic issues. We, as a community, must ensure that the developer works with local government to integrate the development into the local infrastructure in an environmentally and community friendly way.
Firstly, bike lanes and pedestrian walkways should be built to all the schools in the area allowing all our children to walk or bicycle to school safely. Imagine how much less traffic we would have on Western between 3-4pm without school traffic. This would significantly unburden parents from the role of taxi drivers.
Secondly, higher density allows shops, restaurants, meeting places etc. to be much closer together, again allowing residents to walk or bicycle. This will only work if we have safe, pleasant bicycle routes and walkways. Anyone who has braved Western on a bicycle will know what I am talking about.
Thirdly, planning should involve local transit authorities to promote and provide regular bus routes and shuttles to areas of shopping and to commuter links. The development should have a transport coordinator to help facilitate local community integration. We need to find alternatives to driving our cars for this type of community to work.
Finally, we should make the development as environmentally friendly as possible. Homes should be well insulated and be easy to heat or cool. Landscaping should be appropriate for our climate zone. The development should not be gated to allow integration with the local community. Gated communities only fragment the community and help create “us and them” mentalities.
As a society, we need to see that our present model of development is no longer working. Traffic congestion, urban sprawl, loss of open space, loss of sense of community, global warming, lack of respect for others are all symptoms of this misguided plan.
I encourage the Developers, the City and the local community to all work together to change things for the better. Let us make San Pedro a model for the rest of the country. Let us build a sustainable, respectful, pleasant community, where going to the store is a pleasure, not a chore. Let us not look at Ponte Verde as an isolated development, but look at it as a beginning of a new way of building our communities. This process is not just applicable to Ponte Verde but should be applied to all the new development in our town. This includes the new loft and condo developments downtown and the waterfront refurbishments.
Ask yourself how you want your children to be living in 30 years and what we can do to start this process.
___________________________________________
I had some questions and comments for Mr. Kerr and here is our little "discussion". My comments are in a different
On the whole, I found your letter to be a wonderful letter from someone who can support a large development in our community. I found it thoughtfully created and made some interesting points.
I do have some questions that I ask your assistance in answering.
All in all, I think, as a supporter of a large development, with proper mitigation, you are not following many of the supporters of Mr. Bisno's who still seem to find themselves in lock-step with the current Ponte Vista at San Pedro plans and are not willing to consider different types of high density developments as you appear to be.
The following three areas are things I have questions and comments about and I will write them in a different font color.
On the plus side, R3 development such as Pointe vista will offer lower priced housing, allowing our children to buy homes in the area and not move to Palmdale creating more urban sprawl.
Do you know that Bob Bisno considers the lowest end of "affordable" homes at Ponte Vista would be the loft type home at just about $400,000.00, with the average priced home at Ponte Vista currently estimated to be around $712,500.000.?
Mr. Bisno plans to sell homes at "market rates" and allow for a very small number of homes to be sold to "union members and others", and allow for an up to 3% rebate.
This also allows Retail, commercial space, parkland and public space to be within walking or bicycling distance of residents. This increases sense of community, safety and quality of life. This should be a harbinger of how we change the way we build our communities.
In preliminary discussions between the developer and the City, it was determined that there can be up to, but not more than, approximately 10,000 square feet of retail on the site. The vast majority of retail-available space on Western Avenue is already in use.
Firstly, bike lanes and pedestrian walkways should be built to all the schools in the area allowing all our children to walk or bicycle to school safely. Imagine how much less traffic we would have on Western between 3-4pm without school traffic. This would significantly unburden parents from the role of taxi drivers.
I absolutely, positively can not agree with you more. I attended Dodson Jr. High School when the kids from the Navy Housing crossed Western, along with the kids that walked through Navy Housing from lower East View. The accident rate at Western Avenue and Avenida Aprenda was terrible. I would like to see a pedestrian over crossing of Western Avenue if a large development is eventually built at Ponte Vista.
Currently there are no plans for elementary-aged school children who might live at Ponte Vista and have a direct walking access to Taper Avenue School. It appears on various drawings that the fences and gates at Taper Avenue to the new Mary Star campus will be closed and locked once the public route between Western Avenue and Mary Star is built.
This means that every child attending Taper Avenue School will have to be driven or walk along Western Avenue for a portion of the journey to and from Taper.
Secondly, higher density allows shops, restaurants, meeting places etc. to be much closer together, again allowing residents to walk or bicycle. This will only work if we have safe, pleasant bicycle routes and walkways. Anyone who has braved Western on a bicycle will know what I am talking about.
Since there are no current plans to put a Rite-aid, CVS, or Walgreen's type of retail at Ponte Vista, folks would be required to transit a portion of Western Avenue or its sidewalks to get their food, sundries, prescriptions, and other items. There MAY be a coffee stand type of small cafe, and perhaps a dry cleaner at Ponte Vista, but that is about it
I would like to see a public senior center attached to the senior housing at Ponte Vista.
Your letter is worthy of its own post on my blog. I hope you consider granting permission for me to post it. I don't need to use your name, and you can remain anonymous or create an alias for yourself.
Thank you for your concern about Ponte Vista. It is the largest residential development to be considered in the City of Los Angeles since Playa Vista was approved.
So far, the project has divided our community, I hope we can all find ways to bring our community back together and for all of us to consider what is best for our families, neighbors, and our community.
__________________________________________
This is Mr. Kerr's reply.
Thank you for your interest in my letter. You can gladly put it on your blog site. I only ask that you post the entire letter and make comments afterwards.
In reply to your comments I will try to expand on some of my points. Please feel free to include this dialogue on your blog. I think it is very important we consider as many views as possible.
I think that the development should not happen without full integration into the community. The reality is that most retail is based on Western. This is within 1-2 miles of Pointe Vista. Safe routes along Western need to be implemented prior to development. Instead of a 3rd traffic lane, which would only cause the traffic back-up to shift to PCH, we should consider the space for a specific separate bike lane and walkways. A 2 mile trip can easily be done much faster on a bicycle or electric bike or even a Whizzer! I think if you build it and they will come and use it.
Your point of a pedestrian overpass is the kind of integration we need to consider to make people feel safe enough to get out of their cars. Your point about Taper School is another great point. All these access issues need to be fixed before development is approved.
I think Bob Bisno could make lots of money from this development. Why not ensure some of the development money is used to facilitate these infrastructure changes. We need to consider these changes throughout our whole town.You should be able to ride a bike from Pointe Vista to Downtown, to Gaffey, to Cabrillo beach directly and safely.We cannot allow Western to be the only access for Pointe Vista.
On the issue of pricing, in our current system of private development prices are fixed by supply and demand. Prices will always be higher in Coastal areas. However R3 development does increase supply in a given area and help to mitigate overall prices. I do not know the answer to affordable housing, as Government low income housing has not worked in the past. Price fixing a certain percentage of a development is also potentially fraught with many problems.
Steve.
Editor's note.
If folks who demand only R1 development at Ponte Vista want to criticize me for posting a contribution from an intelligent gentleman who doesn't necessarily agree with me, but has the willingness to show his concern in a letter and a post, please go right ahead.
Whether the site remains R1 or not, is still a very big unknown. Mr. Kerr offers insights from a person who is interested in higher density and makes some very good points. Mr. Kerr has also demonstrated care for our community. Caring about our community is a cornerstone for all the discussions, arguments, writings, and other interests within our community.
As we must all continue to demand, IMHO, if proper mitigation is not achieved, then the site MUST remain R1. If concerned folks like Mr. Kerr can help all of us find a better solution for our entire community, even our neighbors that want higher density, then we all should include him and other like-minded neighbors in all discussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment