Change Is Difficult

One of the major reasons I support developments such as Ponte Vista is that environmentally and economically we cannot afford to continue building single-family detached homes in metropolitan areas.

Change is difficult. And this particular subject is probably one of the more difficult ideas for Americans to accept. The house with the white picket-fence has become ingrained as part of the American dream. But it is a concept which can no longer be supported by our environment, or our economy. Especially in Southern California.

First of all, in case anyone has forgotten, Southern California is a desert. What water we have to keep everything green comes from Northern California and Nevada. Through the unregulated draining of Mono Lake and the Salton Sea, we have almost destroyed a couple of the most diverse, beautiful, unique eco-systems in the world.

Why does everyone need a huge lawn around their home which they rarely use? I've been told that most children have favorite neighbor kid's house at which they congregate most of the time. So the rest of the lawns go to crabgrass, and take up huge amounts of water to keep them green. We cannot afford to waste the precious resource of water.

Secondly, if everyone held out for a single-family detached home, we would have to develop every acre between here and Needles to accommodate everyone. Think of all the natural beauty we would be destroying because people can't think of anyone but themselves. Millions and millions of acres of suburban sprawl. And you think traffic and commute times are bad now!

Speaking of commuting, hasn't anyone thought of the astronomical cost in gasoline and other fossil fuel products the commuting would cost and the pollution it would spew into our air? What about the hours lost for the people commuting to their jobs? The lost time with their families? Isn't this a quality-of-life issue?

Americans have gotten too used to having their scaled-down version of a vast prairie homestead, right here in an urban area. It just is not feasible any longer. We need to look to our European roots and look to their cities. Why should one house have a lawn the size of a park which is rarely used, instead of the homes having no lawns and having extensive use of the parks? Europeans seem to handle this issue very well and their children do not seem to be emotionally damaged by growing up in a "flat", or "apartment", or "condo". Whatever label you choose to give it, it is the same concept; efficient use of available land.

Taking that subject a little further. How many of you have spent time really talking to young people in their twenties? The baby-boomers and their hippies might have started the back-to-nature movement. But the young people coming up have taken it further than the hippies ever dreamt. And, after all, isn't it their world anyway? Don't we have a duty of stewardship to preserve as much of the environment for them as we can? Talk to them, they will be the first to tell you that multi-family housing is the only efficient way to live in a large metropolitan area. If this is what they want, do we have the right to squander their trust fund? Especially as most of the people so rabidly espousing R-1 are already ensconced in their own home, so it really does not affect their situation at all. (Except perhaps to raise their property values because of artificially restricted supply.)

We owe it to our children and our children's children to be as efficient as possible in our development of housing. We cannot squander their future because of the loud and boisterous demands of those few people who want to preserve their panoramas, or spend 30 seconds less waiting at a traffic light. I, for one, would gladly spend more time getting around town, so my grandchildren can have a better world to live in.

Inflammatory Rhetoric

A very interesting point discussed at the last CAC meeting on May 22, which has been conveniently ignored in all reports that I have read. It is my opinion this is a very large lapse because the point is an extremely important one. So I will raise it here.

The thing which none of the opposition seems to want to discuss is WHY Bisno Development wants to build the type of project they have proposed and how they got to the numbers of units. The question was posed in a rhetorical way and answered by a member of the CAC and confirmed by Bob Bisno.

Simply stated, "Why would any developer construct housing they could not sell? If they had not done their research and were not extremely confident there was a demand for their project, why would they build something which would sit there unsold?" The answer is equally as simple - they would not.

I am just an amateur at this planning thing. And so is everyone else who has a blog. Unless you work for the City Planning Department, or are a professional architect or urban planner, our ideas are all guesswork. I can suggest things, but I cannot say for certain whether those ideas fit into the very complicated framework of building codes, civil engineering, urban planning, etc. Anything more than general suggestions is a waste of time and bordering on the ridiculous. For example, taking the number of students projected to be living at complex in which we do not yet even know the number of bedrooms is bad enough. But taking that calculation out to 7 decimal places is just plain nonsensical and a waste of time.

The Urban Land Institute published a study of San Pedro and said we needed a minimum of 3,000 new housing units. That was a few years ago and our population growth has accelerated since then. It would not be unreasonable to assume a higher number would be needed. Housing equals jobs for San Pedro.

It is time for people to step back and take a deep breath. There are a great many people getting very shrill over this. Mr. Mark Wells has been gracious in posting many of my comments over the last months, but he probably won't be as nice to me after this post. That is because I have to say it is becoming apparent to me that there is no "negotiating" with him. NO matter what I support, how I massage my ideas, or what ideas of his I support, he is a rachet. He takes what I have conceded and that is the new starting point. He demands even more and more, until there are no aspects of the project left until he gets his way 100%. There are some very basic changes in the way we have to live and I will expand on that a little later.

But for now, I wish Mr. Wells and the R-1 group would stop castigating the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council for having an opinion which differs from theirs. No one threatened to swamp the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council with a pro-development slate of candidates when they passed their resolution in favor of R-1. No one wrote scathing comments about the Wilmington Neighborhood Council when they passed a resolution to support the findings and recommendations of the CAC. So why is Central being singled out? Especially when the allegations so prominently displayed in Mr. Wells' blog are not true. At least not according to the Brown Act. If you take the time to read it (the Brown Act, that is), there are no requirements for a website, a newsletter, or email notifications of meetings or events. If you are going to start using these criteria to criticize a Neighborhood Council, well then the Harbor City Neighborhood Council should be the next target. Or perhaps the Wilmington Neighborhood Council.

In fact, I challenge Mr. Wells to go through a list of the 87 Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils and see which ones comply with the criteria he says are worth making the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council the target of all this vitriolic rhetoric and threatened administrative actions. Are all the councils who do not measure up to his random standards to be de-certified by DONE? What about it Mr. Wells? Up to the challenge, or afraid to be shown up?

My View

With Bisno Development getting ready to put forth a revised description of their project, it is probably a good time for me to re-post the ideas I had for Ponte Vista back in March. It took me a while to come up with the original proposal because I tried my best to look at all aspects of the project. Until now, I thought Mark Wells' blog had gotten the word out pretty well since he had so many hits on his site. But now it is time to re-state it here on my own blog.

The post is verbatim from what I posted up on Mr. Wells' blog. Since then, and with all the intervening debate, pretty much all of my parameters have remained the same. It will be interesting to see how this jibes with the new proposal from Bisno.


¤ I believe 1,700 total living units would work, but with a different mix than we have been presented with.

¤ Senior housing of 700 units, mixed to include lofts to 3-bedrooms. The present DEIR has no allowance for senior lofts and this is a significant oversight. I'm certain there are plenty of single seniors who would like the smaller size unit and the smaller price which comes with it.

¤ Unrestricted housing of 800 units, mixed to include lofts to 3-bedrooms.

¤ "Patio homes" of 200 units. I was thinking of a "star" type arrangement, and also staggered horizontally. The center could be underground parking.

I went with a higher number of total units because the senior lofts would now be in the mix. And, in no small part, if we want a bunch of concessions, we have to give Bisno some motivation to build. Nothing motivates a developer like $$$$. I know I'm going to catch hell for this stance, but something is going to be built there. To think it won't is like standing on the beach and telling the tide it can't come in. Let's at least get something for it.

¤ Some light retail to cut down on driving trips in-an-out of the development: coffee shop, cleaners, drug store, small grocery.

¤ Make dual-use of the open space. Park plus a library. Build the library into a hillside.

¤ Pedestrian bridges crossing Western at the 3 entrances to the development. Nothing screws up traffic (even with synchronized lights) like pedestrians blocking right and left turns. Additionally during school let-out everyone knows that kids go when they feel like it, whether the light is green or yellow. Let's keep them out of harm's way by not even tempting them to jaywalk. If anyone is familiar with the UC Irvine Campus, they've got some great pedestrian bridges which are functional and architecturally beautiful.

¤ At least 2 Dash bus stops. If you provide Dash, people will use it. Especially the kids and seniors.

¤ In order to get the number of units I feel are necessary, Mark is very correct 3-4 stories will not get us there. Bisno should just admit he needs 4-5 stories and go with it. Just keep the buildings which front on Western down so our neighbors (like Mark Wells) can continue to enjoy their unobstructed view.

¤ Escrowed funds for Bisno's contribution into ATSAC. Let's not give unrestricted funds to LA DOT. If we do, it will wind up somewhere else in the city.

¤ Maximum mitigation around the development. Widen Western, re-stripe, etc.

¤ One thing to remember is not to be too myopic. As per the letter to the Daily Breeze, there 1,400 units going in downtown. Plus Target is going to generate a ton of traffic. And what is not on anyone's radar is the huge improvement of the Kaiser facility. This is going to become a major center and generate a ton of cars.

¤ That brings me to 5 Points. With the other projects I named in the previous point, this intersection is going to become more of a nightmare than it already is. In addition, as I said in my previous point, we have to be careful to not get myopic.

a. Ponte Vista will be not responsible for all the additional traffic trying to get through 5 Points. Holding them responsible for it is unrealistic. Target, JCC Homes, Kaiser, The Vue, etc., need to be called to the table to ante up for a fix to 5 Points.

b. The idea of a road through the Naval property which leads directly to a freeway on-ramp is too tightly focused on Ponte Vista and will not address these other projects.

c. In my opinion, traffic itself is not as much of a problem as traffic FLOW. 5 Points cannot be remedied with ATSAC. Nor will a traffic circle help. There will just be too many cars.

What needs to happen at 5 Points is a complete revamping of the entire intersection along the lines of a freeway interchange. PV Drive into Anaheim (east of the intersection) should be turned into a continuous road as an underpass. Normandie into Gaffey should become a continuous road as an overpass. Exit ramps should be constructed for those needing to go from PV Drive/Anaheim East to Vermont and Anaheim West. The same for Normandie/Gaffey, etc. It is the only real way to ensure uninterrupted traffic flow.

¤ Lastly, Caltrans has to get on board and realize that signaled on-ramps and off-ramps can no longer handle the volume of traffic we have in the South Bay. The backups caused by these intersections and lights is more than ridiculous. We need full cloverleaf and modified cloverleaf interchanges at Anaheim, PCH and Sepulveda.

¤ Oops, one more point. "Affordable" housing. Bisno needs to bite-the-bullet and sign up with the City and their subsidized mortgage program. Have a certain percentage of the units of each phase reserved for this program for whatever time frame the City requires. If they don't sell, then they revert to market rate.

More On Comps

In my post on researching "comparable" homes, I was taken to task that if it was available and affordable, then it should be counted as housing. No consideration was given by the commenter as to the condition of the property, and if it was so bad it was something I would not even let my dog live in.

It is not that simple. Actually, comps can be adjusted to many different variables. It isn't rocket science, but it also can't be as simple as "Okay, it's a house, so I'll just buy it." Ask any real estate agent you know. They will tell you what a pain it is driving people to look at this place, but the window in the kitchen is quite in the right spot, so let's go look at another, etc. etc.

Another commenter tried to say Ponte Vista could be compared to the Vue. Comparing the Vue to anything else is not a fair comparison. That's like comparing someone who has their office in the Interstate Building downtown, to someone who has their office in the Brown Brothers Building. Not that Ponte Vist will be that small, but comparing it to a 16-storey building is ridiculous. If you must compare it to something, the Gardens is themost valid since it is so spread out.

However, many people do comps based on square footage and number of bedrooms. They will do this to get a value per square foot and see if they want to spend more money on an SFR with a yard, or if they want condo living instead.

We do not yet know what the numbers on Ponte Vista will be. So really it is premature to start making comparisons. This is another reason why it is not yet appropriate to start picking numbers out of the air to estimate traffic for the new proposal for Ponte Vista.

On another note, I have also been accused of breaking the rules of the HOAs where I own a couple of investment properties and rented them out in violation of the CC&Rs. Let me be clear - I did not rent any of my condos out in violation of any CC&Rs of the complexes they are in. I wish these accusations had not been made blindly. What I was trying to do when I opened myself up to these unfounded allegations, was to illustrate that if we wanted to take preventitive measures over a large percentage of Ponte Vista units becoming rentals, we should strongly urge Bisno Development to write it into the CC&Rs.

Historically though, condos usually turn into rentals after the first turnover. Meaning that the original purchasers have done well enough they can move on to something larger. Many times, they will keep their original unit as a rental. Sometimes they have the financial strength to buy something else, but cannot get their asking price for the condo they wish to sell. In this case,many people just opt to keep it and rent it out.

Tom Field

The Byzantine World of HOAs and Their Management

☼ A question was posed to me via email about how much money could be made by being the manager of the Ponte Vista HOA. The writer also gave the example of a relative who had been assessed a "Special Assessment" for re-roofing the building. The second part of the question was whether all units would pay the same.

Much of this is murky because it will not be absolutely determined until the project is finished and turned over to the HOA.

I do not live in a condo, but I have in the past and I've owned some investment properties which were condos. My answers are based on personal experience and might not be complete. I might get some stuff wrong, so I would appreciate any assistance in corrections and fine-tuning.

☼ Let me start with the "easy" answer first. Any HOA which has to go out with a "Special Assessment" for regular maintenance such as roof repair, dropped the ball. This should have been calculated into the monthly fee. This type of problem is usually symptomatic of smaller associations who try to do it themselves. State law requires they keep a reserve for this type of thing. But when you have the owners trying to do things themselves without professional assistance, they often overlook obvious potential problems. The state also requires a reserve for calamitous events. In all fairness, with people being late on the HOA dues, or bringing the funding back up after a major expenditure, etc. maintaining these separate reserves can be difficult. But that IS what the management company gets paid for.

☼ The more common way in which HOA fees are currently calculated is a base, plus additional for the size of your unit. Bigger units take more maintenance for certain items. So someone who owns a little loft will not be paying as much as someone with a 3-bedroom.

While it seems like a large amount of money being collected, all of it is being paid out for maintenance, and (hopefully) to maintain the mandated reserves. (Oh, by-the-way, the developer is obligated to turn over the project to the HOA with all reserves funded.) So even though it's a bunch of money, it is not going in the manager's pocket. HOA managers are like any other property manager in that they work on a percentage of fees collected. For large complexes it hovers around 5%, although if the association is tough they can negotiate that down. For smaller complexes it can be as high as 10%.

☼ The other thing to remember is that Ponte Vista will not be 2,300 units. I have not supported that many units from the beginning. And as Mark Wells pointed out in his blog, Bisno Development said they are presenting a new proposal on June 18. Some people feel they could present an even bigger project, but I think they are going to come in with a lower number.

This is good. Less units means more area for green space/parks, or adding more retail. I'm looking forward to hearing what they have to say.

I was heartened to hear that it was expressed that there might be some meetings AFTER the presentation in which the CAC will try to reconcile the new proposal with what they have recommended so far.

☼ Regarding "glorified garages" and units of 600-700 sq.ft.. I have to admit I am expressing personal opinion here. There are reasons to buy an existing home, and there are reasons to buy new construction. Personally I would not want to deal with the problems inherent in a 25-30 building. I've had to deal with them before in some of my investment properties. They turn out to be money-pits. But if you have the time and desire to work on fixing the place up, they can be worthwhile. But they are still not cheap. $400,000 for a fixer-upper is not in the same league as new construction.

☼ While people talk about the average price at Ponte Vista, they should be talking about the median price. Straight averages are not an accurate representation. Medians are. If you look at any real estate articles, they always talk about the median price.

However, neither average, nor median prices can be calculated until we know how many units, how many bedrooms, and projected sales prices. Hopefully this will be presented at the June 18 CAC meeting.

☼ The last item is Miraleste Canyon Estates. Thanks Mark for the contribution. The high percentage of renters in that complex definitely keeps the property values down. In addition it is '70 chic. All the floorplans are just about identical and they are just boxes set next to each other. I would live there as a renter, or perhaps as a starter home, but that's about it. Because of the depressed market values, you are just not going to get the price appreciation you would in a different location.

I hope this brings up more items for us to discuss and make suggestions about.

Tom Field

Did the Research - No Changes

A few days ago, a comment was posted that ziprealty.com was a better source than realtor.com. I promised to do some research, and I did.

ziprealty.com is a real estate sales company. They pull their listings from the exact same place realtor.com does, the MLS. Searching in San Pedro, I found 312 listings on ziprealty and 374 on realtor.com.

The least expensive unit I found on ziprealty was a 760 sq.ft. condo, 1-bedroom, 1-bath for $265,000. But then there was also the 2-bedroom, 1-bath at 672 sq.ft. for $450,000. Talking about living in something the size of a garage!

realtor.com had 374 listings. The least expensive was a dump at 742 Summerland. 2-bedroom, 1-bath for $299,000. Another glorified garage, but at least $150,000 less than the other garage. Plus it was 70 sq.ft. larger.

That is as far as I took it. I saw no sense in looking at the $1,000,000+ properties and I do not have the time to parse each of 686 listings, many of which are duplicates.

So my original theory remains unchanged. There are definitely reasons to buy an existing home. But in San Pedro, price is not one of them. There is not a large pool of quality existing housing priced below $450,000.

Oh, and for those of you who want to point out all those wonderful places up in that monster complex on Miraleste Drive, that is not San Pedro. They are in Rancho Palos Verdes. Sorry, but it's not in our town, so you cannot use them for comparison.

So I must reiterate, the thing that new construction adds is a large pool of available housing with a wide range of choices from lofts to 4-bedrooms. Then there is the added benefit of quality construction. You don't need to worry about the electrical, or the plumbing, or dry rot, or termites, etc., etc..

Tom Field

Afforability? and Availability

☼ The first point I wanted to make about a new housing project is that it makes an entire pool of housing available. People are not faced with looking at one house up on 3rd Street and one down on 22nd Street and maybe two over on Leland.

The second part of that is usually a developer will make an arrangement with a real estate broker and the buyer winds up paying only one-half the commission they would normally pay if they were buying an existing home. The same goes for escrow and title fees. These all add up in a hurry and can save a buyer with having to come up with as much money upfront as they might normally have to do. This gets more people into homes of their own.

☼ A commenter mentioned in the "answering questions" post that people were better off buying a 10-year old condo because it would be more affordable. To that Anonymous commenter, I ask please tell me where? There are no condos that I have been able to find recently in that age bracket which are anywhere near the price range. Secondly the one or two you might find takes me back to my other point of having a pool of potential homes instead of one or two where you are forced into a bidding war to get the place.

More likely is the scenario of a 850 sq.ft. single family home with two bedrooms and one bathroom. Usually it will have been built around 1910 or so and will be listed for around $650,000. This is affordable? I think not.

In addition to the price, you buy the privilege of original electrical, plumbing and insulation. So if you want it to last for a while, you are faced with the prospect of a "gut-remodel" of the "new" home you just bought. I'll take the new construction, thank you very much. I know I won't have anything to worry about for years.

Tom Field

Clarification on the Concepts

I'm not certain the concepts of the Draft EIR and the work done by LA DOT is being fully understood.

There has been a lot of talk of how much units will cost and how many students and traffic the project will generate, etc.

The first error I want to address is the misconception that only 586 new residents will be in Ponte Vista, so the rest of us should not have to endure the "costs" for such a small number. This is absolutely wrong. In order to be more reasonable, I'm going to use the 1,700 units I proposed for the project, instead of the 2,300 proposed by the developer. Using the same density ratios as the DEIR, this would mean 1,260 new residents in the Senior Housing and 4,257 in the non-age restricted section. It is an absolute error to say that only the least expensive units should be used to calculate the number of "new" residents. Using the 1,700 units, there would be a total of 5,517 new residents in Ponte Vista. Any other method of calculating it is gerrymandering and is automatically prone to error.

The second point which seems to have stuck in people's craw is the 12,253 AVERAGE trips generated using a simple average method over the ITE formula. A simple average is just not accurate. Period. Let me give you an example outside the topic of traffic which might make it more user-friendly.

The average (also called a "mean") U.S. household income was $65,317 in 2005. The median income was $46,326. I would say this is a significant difference, wouldn't you? 40.99% difference to be exact. The average is a simple calculation; add up all the data and divide by the number of data points. The median uses a formula. In the average income, 36% of households earn more, and 64% earn less? Is this representative? I think not. Using the median, 50% earn more, 50% earn less. A much more accurate measure.

Continuing to use a number which was admittedly a "eyeball" kind of decision by Mr. Kim is just irresponsible and misleading. Personal opnions have no room in these types of calculations. Asking Mr. Kim to render his opinion was unfair. You could ask 6 different traffic engineers and get 6 different opinions about the "average". The ITE formula tables keep it consistent and objective. People shouldn't be allowed to use them at their convenience, or disregard them when it is inconvenient.

☼ On another point, just because I don't agreee with every single line written in the DEIR, doesn't mean I think it should all be thrown out. It is a draft and needs to be refined. It is a beginning point from which to move forward.

Tom Field

Exact process

There was a valid point brought up in an earlier comment and after a little research I realized I had made a mistake and inadvertently left out one step in the process for the application for Ponte Vista.

The actual steps are:
1. After the CAC finishes their work, it goes to Councilwoman Hahn's office. Doing the CAC first saves time later because sometimes the City Council Planning sub-committee asks for a CAC to be formed to get their input;
2. Next the Councilwoman adds her ideas to the Specific Plan suggested by the CAC and sends it up to;
3. The City Planning Department who studies the Specific Plan and does their magic with making certain it fits in with the General Area Plan;
4. The Specific Plan then goes up to the Planning Commission. They look at how the Specific Plan fits into the doctrine of their goals;
5. After this it goes to the City Council who automatically sends it down to their Planning Committee to be certain all municipal codes and regulations have been complied with. When they are finished;
6. the Specific Plan goes back up to the City Council for a vote to approve it.

Sorry I left out the one step in my first description of the process.

Tom Field

Great! down to nut-and bolts!

Mark,
What is escaping everyone is that the document is DRAFT. This means it contains elements which are tentative, and some outright errors. I have never taken the position the DEIR is the Bible. It is merely a starting point. The final EIR will have to go into much more detail.

I thought I addressed the part the Planning Department and the Planning Committe of the City Council will play in the process. Could you be a little more specific in your question?

Two meetings ago, when the CAC added June 19 to their calender, it was said one of the reasons was Bisno was going to be leaving on vacation.

If the traffic can be mitigated, why should we not give young people a chance to buy in San Pedro?
Even though Bisno told you what he thought what the bedrooms would be, until it's in writing, it's all speculation. There are many steps before there is a final Specific paln ready to submit to the City Council for a vote.


Kara McLeod,
I agree with you 100%. There is no real way to determine what the units will be sold for. My experience is that new construction tends to sell at somewhat of a discount to existing home sales. I could be very wrong. Luckily the Planning Department, and the City Council Planning Committee have a great deal of flexibility and influence over what gets put into the final Specific Plan and EIR.

Bisno has said he would welcome a 500-seat academy on the property, so your statement that he is against any school is a little off-base. Having a 500-seat academy would go a long way in resolving this issue.

Water use, electrical grid impact and emergency service have all been signed off by the relevant agencies. Sewers on the property itself will have to be re-done. DWP (or is it Sanitation?) has more than adequate capacity, once the pipelines from the project get to the City main sewer line.

Bisno has indicated he would be willing to take a look at compromising regarding the gating of the non-age restricted housing. But, he feels seniors want the safety of a gated enclave. I don't really thing calling it a "senior ghetto" is fair, but you have the right to your opinion. Basically, everything is market driven. If enough people do not want gating on the senior portion, they simply will not purchase. Bisno will be forced to change the plan.

I still feel new-construction is more attractive and a better value for your dollar. I believe buyers feel this also. We can only wait to see what comes out in the Final EIR and see if what is proposed is feasible.

Thank you for your input.

Tom Field

addressing questions

Sorry to not get comments approved and posted until late. I was tied up most of the day with a family crisis. But let's address the questions raised.

First, Mark Wells. Yes, without Eastview there will probably be a lower traffic count. At this point I don't see anything else they could put in there since there has not been any public outcry for a senior center, or a daycare center, and such. It seems the public wants open space.

kris, thanks for the comment. Your position is not ignorant at att since this is actually quite a complicated process. Meetings of the CAC will be May 22, June 7 and June 19. At that point everything goes to the Councilwoman's office. She will add her recommendations. The project then goes to the City Planning Department who will draw up the actual Specific Plan. They then bring this plan in front of the full City Council. The City Council will send it down to their Planning Committee for review. If everything makes sense in the plan, they send it back up to the full City Council for a vote. That is when it will be finally decided. However, we as residents have the opportunity for input. Most easily to the CAC so the Councilwoman can see the suggestions and incorporate them. Getting ideas into the plan ssoner is better.

Does that help? I hope so. Comment again if you need any more clarifications. Or for anyone else, if you believe I have left something out, or was inaccurate, please comment on it.

Kara McLeod - While my personal situation is one which is more concerned about affordability, I was writing about traffic because that is what everyone seemed to want to talk about. For many people, the decision point over how they felt about the project would be determined if all the traffic could be mitigated.

But you are absolutely correct. This is Southern California, the Coastal region on top of that, so things will be more expensive than say - Hemet. Unfortunately when my kids were ready to buy (about 10 years ago) the areas which were affordable were not livable. The town has cleaned up a lot since then. But prices have gone up accordingly.

I believe that new construction affords first-time buyers a better opportunity than existing homes. If there are 20 studios built at Ponte Vista, that is a much bigger pool than anywhere else in the Southbay. Just look on realtor.com. Where are you going to find 20 newly-built, quality studios? You can't. It could be debated whether the prices will be comparable to the Gardens. I personally think the initial offering price will be a little lower than the because the units will all be basic with no upgrades. Once someone has livied in a home and upgraded their kitchen or their bathrooms, the price always goes up. For this reason, I believe pricing would be lower than for existing homes. Secondly, you can't even get into the Gardens if you want a studio. Nor can you find a 4-bedroom. So it is really a demand-driven dynamic. People will buy where they can.

That's enough of my soap-box lecture. I look forward to your future comments.

Tom Field

Supporting the CAC

Well, I feel a little better in knowing I am in good company. It seems that members of Councilwoman Hahn's Community Advisory Committee have also received hate-mail and thinly veiled death threats. This is completely out-of-bounds.

Whether you agree with any particular member's position, these people have devoted a great deal of time and effort to get it done correctly. They've come up with a few recommendations for the Councilwoman, but have a ton more work to do in the coming weeks. I have confidence that they will bring forth some more good recommendations.

What I (unfortunately) let myself get dragged off-topic from, was a discussion of Jerry Gaines' presentation of his traffic template. Mr. Gaines is a very intelligent man and most times when he starts talking my eyes glaze over because it is so hard to keep up. However, this last presentation was very clear and concise, and combined with the graphs, brought it down to where someone who doesn't have Jerry's years of experience with traffic on Western Avenue could follow. My only sugestion for the presentation was that perhaps Bisno Development could have provided enough copies for those of us in the audience trying to keep up. Therefore I cannot find the exact number in my notes. Can anyone out there assist? Did he say there was a baseline of 35,000 trips at the Western Avenue/PV Drive North intersection?

The good part, is that Jerry came up with a rational baseline number to use for traffic. Once you have an accurate baseline, it becomes much easier to examine all the options. I guess this is what Mr. Gaines did in his handout to the CAC. Does anyone know if we can obtain a copy?

I would suggest that all sides of this seminal event drop any further incendiary comments to the CAC. Unless you have NEW information to add, they probably already have a good idea that there are lots of people who support it, and lots of people who don't want the zoning changed. Let's support the CAC in making the best recommendations they can.

Comments and discussion on Mr. Gaines' presentation are welcomed.

Tom Field

Understanding the CONCEPT

Well, I've been busted! Mark Wells caught me. I said Mr. Jay Kim used 9,212 daily trips in his presentation. Actually Mr. Kim used that number in his presentation at the previous meeting. The 9,212 came from a comment Mr. Wells made regarding my "Traffic" post. Since that is what he brought up in his comment and that is the variable, I thought it would be okay to discuss it only. My Bad!

The correct total daily trips presented in the DEIR, and the number used by Mr. Kim at the CAC meeting on May 11, is 9,355. The difference being 143 trips projected to be generated by two baseball diamonds. Since there is a great uncertainty the baseball diamonds will be built because of the Port offering up Knoll Hill, I thought discussing the actual concepts, technicalities and reasons behind using ITE formulas versus a raw average was more important than including trips from (probably) non-existent baseball diamonds. Again, My Bad!

Even though Mr. Wells brought up the 9,212 number, he now wants to split hairs and has spent an excessive amount of time parsing each word I wrote in order to cast it in the worst possible light. Even though he posts up conciliatory comments in his own blog and on mine, he turns on a dime and gets very "not nice" in a big hurry. And even more ridiculously, started another blog in order to muddy the waters about blog names and where people go to read the truth. Direct quote from Mr. Wells' blog: "I will use this particular blog to rip the living shreds out of each and every post he creates." Just plain pettiness.

All this does is illustrate the reason I stopped posted on Mr. Wells' blog and started my own. It also confirms my decision to moderate comments. I had to go out for personal reasons and did not have time to instantly respond to Mr. Wells. He and an Anonymous flooded my inbox with vitriolic junk.

As you can all see by the site meter, a lot of people visited this blog on its inaugural day. Given it has only been here for one day, the count is not too bad.

Tirades about semantics can be found somewhere else. Endless commentary about minutiae can be found somewhere else. That is not the purpose of this blog.

Thank you for visiting. I hope you all continue to come back to read objective facts regarding the issues.

Tom Field

MOVE ON!

Okay, so I've received some comments that I've gone ahead and posted up even though they were borderline on the aggression scale. But the limit has been reached.

What I am not comprehending is how everyone is so stuck in some vendetta over perceived past transgressions. All the comments (except one) have been about peripheral issues. Mark Wells is the only one who commented on the "Traffic" post. And no one has yet to say anything about "The Devil is in the Details".

Get over it and move on. I want to discuss the issues. We are running out of time. If all you can do is complain that "Mommy! Billy hit me!" then this blog will be as much a waste of time as the rest.

It is your choice. Open forum, or shut it down. Pretty much the same for me.

Tom

The devil is in the details!

Mark Wells brings up a good point in his comment to my "Traffic" post. However, as the title of this post says "The devil is in the details!"

I have the Traffic Study sitting in front of me. It does say that the 9,212 comes from the ITE "weekday trip generation average rates". However, this is not the "average" number presented by Mr. Kim for the low-rise condos. The technical, statistically correct meanings are getting lost in semantics here.

During the meeting Mr. Kim presented the 9,212 as the product of the ITE trip generation formula. This is the true and correct meaning. The 12,252 trips came not from the ITE manual, but rather from a straight averaging of the data points. You know, add all the trips together and divide by the number of data points? This produces a straight line on the graph. As we all know from common sense, traffic density is not a straight line. Certain times of the day it is very tight and other times there is not another car in sight.

This is what makes straight averaging inaccurate and misleading. To the reader unfamiliar with this technical language, the words "average rates" can easily be confused with "average trips". But the "average rate" is used to multiply against another number to get the "hard" number of actual trips. "Average trips" is the final hard number with no flexibility. Then you have the scenario I outlined in my previous post.

As to who was exerting the pressure on Mr. Kim, I would like to reserve that opinion for now since it is merely speculation. Nonetheless, it should have been obvious to everyone that he was nervous as hell and venturing into unfamiliar territory. This could have come only from his being forced to use data LA DOT does not normally use in their regular course of business. My question is why are they being pressured to do this?

Easy to Fix

Of course I expected it. But I thought (silly me) that the people who were happy being idiots would just stay on their own websites and let us have our own logical discussion.

But it did not last long. In only the second comment to one of the posts, someone had to test the rules and go off on a completely unrelated diatribe.

It's okay. It was easy to fix. And now the site will be fully moderated. R-1 thugs just do not get to take over and bully me.

Pleasant reading, and I look forward to your (on-topic) comments.

Tom

It's all about the Traffic

¤ Back to the core of things, the presentation by LA DOT on Thursday night was a travesty. Not for what they said, but for how they were pressured into presenting numbers which were just plain wrong!Anyone who has taken Statistics 101 understands that using an "average" is completely inaccurate. Remember back in college when your professors would grade "on a curve"? Even though we hated it, there was a very good reason to use it. It was accurate.

Even if you did not go to college and take statistics, those of you with PHds (Pedro High Diplomas) can use enough common sense to realize that there are not as many cars on the road at 3am as there are during rush hour. Using the "average" number is the equivalent to saying there are. It's just not true. The formulas ("curves") worked out by the ITE tables accurately takes into account the differing number of cars at different times. This, in turn, allows the traffic engineers to more accurately predict how many cars will be on the road with a given change in the number of housing units emptying onto that road.

A very simple example can illustrate this. If you use the "average" that means traffic lights will be timed so that you are waiting for 3 minutes or more for the light to change in the middle of the night when there is not another car in sight. Conversely, it means that no matter how tight rush hour traffic has become, you still get only those same 3 minutes. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Whereas, the formula numbers will allow the traffic lights to be timed so that you can sail right through when you are coming home from that late night at work. And during rush hour the lights can be programmed to give the main artery more time to clear out.

But the biggest disaster was the fact that politicos stuck their noses into technical matters in which they have exactly zero expertise. Let LA DOT do their job. Let the Planning Department do their job. I trust Betsy Weisman over Gordon Teuber any day.

¤ On another note. I had previously submitted (on another blog) my ideas of what might work at Ponte Vista. I will eventually re-work that proposal and post it here. But for now I just wanted to say I was surprised that even with the jacked-around numbers, when LA DOT worked backwards they came up with a higher number of housing units for which traffic can be fully mitigated, than I proposed. I guess I have more work to do.

It's called "Sarcasm"

A Letter to The Editor of More San Pedro by Ted Carlson was severely criticized in another blog.

Given it is no secret I am not favorable to the R-1 gang, I wanted to give my opinion of his letter and the resulting criticism. I promise to not be verbose.

By the time I finished reading the letter, I was laughing so hard I was almost crying. It is one of the most hilarious parodies I have read in a long time. I don't believe anyone with half a brain could have read the letter and thought Mr. Carlson was in earnest. Anyone who did, takes themselves way too seriously. The letter does a great job of underlining the ridiculousness of the claims of the R-1 gang.

First - The Rules

After a significant amount of harassment on the presently available venues for discussing PONTE VISTA, I've decided to start my own blog in order to give people a neutral forum to present their opinions. I will attempt to answer any and all questions to the best of my ability. However, I am not a professional urban planner. What I know, I learned from the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Hopefully, readers will be able to weigh-in with answers when I am stuck (which might be quite often). All I ask is to be certain you have an accurate source to quote in your answer.

The rules for posting are simple.
1. Keep on topic.
2. The blog will be moderated and no aggressive comments will be tolerated.

I hope you all enjoy what you read.