Mr. Istics Figures

Mr. Stat Istics gave a presentation at last night's first meeting of supporters and include a whole bunch of numbers, figures and even one place holder.

Here are the figures he (I) used and a brief description of each one to help all of us out.

2,300. This is the total number of units in Bob's current proposal
575. This is the number of Senior Housing units Bob wants now
1,725. This is the number of non-age restricted condominiums and town houses Bob wants.
20. This is the number of residential buildings currently proposed for the site.
7. This is the number of building that are shown to have more units per building than the
nearby Seaport Luxury Homes development.
16.91. The number of Seaport Luxury Homes developments that would be required to be built
to equal the total number of units currently planned at Ponte Vista.

1,035. The estimated number of residents in the Senior Housing section of Ponte Vista.
3,278. The estimated number of residents in the non-age restricted portion of the project.
7,343. The estimated number of residents at Ponte Vista based on SCAG estimates and
as included in the Initial Study, with footnotes.
4,313. The estimated total permanent residential project population of Ponte Vista per the
DEIR.
3,030. The difference in the two total estimates for the projected population of Ponte Vista.


600-650 Square feet. The estimated size of the smallest unit at Ponte Vista.
850 Square feet. the smallest sized unit currently illustrated on the Ponte Vista Web site.
16%-17% of 2,300. The approximate number of the smallest units at Ponte Vista.
172. The approximate number of four bedroom town houses proposed for the non-age
restricted section of the development.

136. The number of units currently being built at Seaport Luxury Homes.
187. The number of units in the largest building proposed at Ponte Vista.
67. The number of units in the smallest residential building proposed at Ponte Vista.
62. The number of units at The Tennis Club development on Fitness Drive
129. The number of units at the Casa Verde Estates on Fitness Drive.
6.07. The gross number of acres of the "public park" proposed at Ponte Vista.
5.46 The net size of that park, because picnickers don't want to eat in the street.
429. The most number of single-family detached houses that could be built at the Ponte Vista
site under the current zoning of the site.
536. The most number of single-family detached houses that could be built if a density bonus
was approved for the development.

$122,000,000. The price the developer paid for the parcels of land that eventually
created Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
$817,000,000 The estimated total cost of construction of the development, according to the
DEIR
$939,000,00 The estimated total costs for the development of the project.
$712,500. The estimated average cost of a unit at Ponte Vista.
$1,638,750 The estimated income from selling all 2,300 units with the average price of
$712,500.

$699,750,000 The difference between the estimated total costs minus the estimated total
income. Call this what you might, some call it the profit the developer might
create, in my opinion.

$330,000, $380,000, $400,000+. The estimated price of the least expensive unit at P
Ponte Vista, according to Bob Bisno, or one of his
representatives. No one really knows what the price
would actually be.
$1,250,000. The estimated price for the four-bedroom town house that Bob proposes.

98.5. The estimated number of school age students at the currently planned
Urban Village development.
.339. The estimated number of students per unit at Urban Village.
199. The estimated number of school age students at Ponte Vista in a 1,725 unit section.
.115 The estimated number of students per unit in the 1,725-unit section of Ponte Vista.
676.2 The estimated number of students at Ponte Vista if the Urban Village ratio is used,
in my opinion.

287. The number of permanent seats at the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium Auditorium, used
for comparison.
25.59. The number of times the auditorium must be filled to equal 7,343.
15.02. The number of times the auditorium must be filled to equal 4,313.

6. The L.A. County Paramedic Squad unit number that must pass the Ponte Vista
site to get to any emergency in Rancho Palos Verdes, near Western Avenue.

0. This is a place holder. It indicates the number of major routes, other than
Western Avenue that will be used for ingress and egress of the Ponte Vista
site, as currently planned.

4,106. The DEIR estimated weekday number of additional trips on at least a portion of
Western Avenue from a 429-unit R1 development at Ponte Vista.
9,212. The DEIR estimated weekday number of additional trips on at least a portion of
Western Avenue from a 2,300-unit Ponte Vista development.
9,355. The newest estimation from LADOT for the number of added vehicle trips
into or out of a 2,300-unit development.

12,253. This is the estimate given by Mr. Jay Kim, a supervisor in the section of the LADOT
that approved the original DEIR Traffic and Transportation section of the DEIR.
This estimate by Mr. Kim utilized different ITE trip generations than were used
during the development of the DEIR and is only Mr. Kim's estimation.

Mr. Kim was asked by the CAC to provide figures that would not have normally be taken into account for a high-rise condominium and town house which, was used by the Ponte Vista Development engineers to calculate the projected trip generation figures.

Mr. Kim opined that the estimation he gave was more in line with his thinking, specifically about the Ponte Vista project, than the ITE trip generation table that was used, would allow for.

Mr. Kim is a traffic engineer. He is a supervisor of other traffic engineers. He is much more familiar with traffic than this blogger or any other blogger I have read is.

Mr. Kim's estimation, no matter where and how it came to be, means that if that estimation were to actually be more correctly in line with what the DEIR estimation states, there is absolutely no way any developer could possible mitigate that added number of vehicles on Western Avenue.

It is my OPINION, that if errors in statistical analysis are made, we should error on the higher total of added trips because if we error to the lower figure, we all could get stuck in the longest narrow parking lot on the planet. Mr. Kim gave his estimate. I would rather follow his estimate than the one supported by the DEIR. If we followed Mr. Kim's estimation and there turns out to be fewer added trips, we all win. If we use the DEIR estimates and they are too low, we all lose.
I would rather win than lose, wouldn't you?

O.K. attackers, let me know where I am incorrect in my posted figures. Please be, at least somewhat considerate. If my figures are incorrect, please let me know. I'll research it and correct them if they are incorrect.

Sometimes we get things correct, sometimes humans make mistakes. When presenting me with inaccuracies, please give my your source for where I can look to find my mistake. If you don't provide source documentation, I am under no obligation to believe you.

Opinions are opinions. You can let me know your opinion and I will keep it posted. Opinions are not facts so please remember that.