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
5 comments:
Mr. Field, I must admit, this post has me very confused and reaching for my calculator.
I think, by reading your proposal for 1,700 units, you wrote that the number of residents at your proposed Ponte Vista, would be
5,517 new residents. The DEIR states in its total expected population count, that with Bob's current plan, 4,313 new residents might be expected. Your count is 1,204 more residents than Bob's count.
1.8 times 700 is your 1,260 seniors
If you then have 1,000 residential condominium units at the site with Bob's 2.0 residents per non-age restricted units, that adds 2,000 new residents in that section.
1,260 + 2,000 + 3,260. Your 5,517 and my 3,260 makes me confused.
If you used a resident per unit ratio higher than Bob uses, pleas let me know what ration you used. If your ratio seems more reasonable, and I think it is, compared to Bob's, then Bob's numbers for the non-age restricted units in his current plan is off by quite a bit. I never though a 2.0 average for this type of condominium and the sizes he told me, jived.
I an not as stuck on 12,253 as others might be. But if any error is contimplated, perhaps in the best interests of the folks who must use Western Avenue, every day, we should error on the side of the higher estimation, instead of the lower estimation, I feel.
The number may actually be somewhere inbetween 9,212 and 12,253, shouldn't we prepare for the worst and enjoy the best.
Please remember what Bob told me on the bus going to the first tour. I asked him directly why 2,300 units were in his proposal. He said that is the maximum number of dwellings he could build and successfully mitigate all the traffic issues on Western Avenue.
Bob came up with that number after consulting his traffic engineer and others.
Mitigating the maximum is fine,unless the real number is higher than the maximum anticipated.
Tom, I never stated that there would only be 586 new residents at Ponte Vista. Read more carefully, you would read that 586 is an estimation of the number of residents of the LEAST PRICED UNITS at Ponte Vista. Bob stated to me that between 16% and 17% of the units he plans to build at Ponte Vista were of the smallest and least priced type. My estimation was only for a portion of the number of residents at Ponte Vista.
Again Tom, you continue to attack Mr. Kim's opinion and estimation. You stated that you are not a traffic engineer, and I have repeatedly stated that I am not a traffic engineer, either.
Mr. Kim is a traffic engineer. in fact, he is a supervising traffic engineer. It would be more "neutral" of you to stop bashing Mr. Kim's opinion and let his opinion be his opinion. You certainly can disagree with it, but his opinion seems to be more worthy of belief than your criticism of it, I feel. I have no real idea of how many vehicle trips will be added to Western Avenue each day, and neither does any one else. Until a truly accurate reality of the number of units that MAY actually get built on the site is established, and a real number of new residents if calculated, then all estimations could be thrown in and we should all error towards the larger estimation of traffic generation, so none of us get stuck in an under-mitigated situation or a situation where mitigation is impossible.
To address the affordability issue, I think we might want to use factual statistics for the median costs, incomes, prices, and such in our local area. Mr. Bisno is thinking that our local seniors would like homes at Ponte Vista. Mr. Bisno wants our local workers to move into new homes there, too. Mr. Bisno wants to provide local new homes to many currently local residents.
Perhaps we should look at our local economy, income base, work opportunities when calculating whether any unit at Ponte Vista is truly affordable to folks in our local area.
MW
Mark,
In my calculation of desnity, I used the numbers published in the Initial Study as my base and worked from there. I felt it was prudent since the change between the Initial Studya and the DEIR was not sufficiently explained. I used a density of 1.8 per unit for the Senior section and 4.2 for the non-age restricted. I'm sorry I did not make that more clear. I believe there will at least one child, maybe two for a large percentage of families. After all that is why they are moving, they need more room. Secondly I tend to believe until we get an exact count of the mix of units, it is better to err on the high side.
Tom
Mark,
My problem with using the raw AVERAGE number is it is inaccurate and not flexible. It is not workable to use for calculating how changes in number of units affects trips.
I might not be a traffic engineer, but the independent traffic engineer hired by the Northwest Neighborhood Council, Chuck Thompson of Priority Engineering, found the Traffic Study to be accurate and correct in its methodology. I'm not going to jump to using a different number because one particular guy who was pressured into finding a higher number pulled out something which is rarely used. The ITE formula tables are there becasue they work and have a huge database behind them.
Wasn't my example using U.S. household incomes effective? Did it not make the point?
I DO like one of theother things Mr. Kim did. That was to take the maximum number of mitigatable trips and work backwards. Using his numbers that came out to something like 1,850 units. So my proposal of 1,700 units is well within what can be mitigated with plenty of room for any "oops" factor.
Tom
Thanks Tom, for clearing up my confusion. I am going to repeat something you wrote in your comments back to me that I totally agree with, in all aspects of the Ponte Vista DEIR:
"Secondly I tend to believe until we get an exact count of the mix of units, it is better to err on the high side."
It looks like both of us agree that erring on the higher side is better than erring on the lower side. This is my point on trip generation, too. But enough of that for now.
If you don't have a full copy of the independent engineers findings, which included his summary and recommendations, perhaps I can leave it at a CAC meeting in some secret place where you can find it and read it.
Just like the DEIR, the independent summary should be read by all who support its intital findings to also view the recommendations Mr. Thompson wrote. If you wish to continue to repeat Mr. Thompson's original findings, it would be more "neutral" on your behalf to also include the recommendations he made along with his defense of the DEIR's traffic study, which should not be taken as gospel, as you so correctly write.
I hope Bob doesn't see that you used the Initial Study's assumption of project population. I am very glad you did, though. It makes me think that you find the 4,313 figure and the 3,278 figure far too low for a 1,725-unit non-age restricted condominium development.
I liked your proposal for 700 Senior Housing units, but I think there might not be enough seniors in our area to fill that particular section. That is why I have rethought my wish for 700 units, but I don't know how many units of this type should really be built, now. Being the oddball in my group, I still wish for a Senior Housing section, complete with cobblestone walkways where skateboarders dare not roll.
MW
Mark,
I really do want to present a neutral forum. Sometimes it is difficult to keep my personal preferences out of my writing. As you know I've proposed a project of 1,700 which, of course, is probably not popular with either camp. Be that as it may...
But you are correct, I should have posted Chuck Thompson's recommendations. I feel someof them though were already implemented by the LA DOT recount. Yet still, in all fairness, let me re-read his findings and I'll get it posted up.
Yes, I do fel 4,313 and 3,278 are too low for 1,725 non-age restricted units. Even if they have no kids, one kid, or more, when they move in, this will be their home and people do things like have more babies. Using the higher population number will allow a more realistic projection of loads on infrastructure and schools.
Tom
Post a Comment