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.
5 comments:
Tom, I think you and I are getting closer to coming us with what may be best for OUR community.
All I need you to do is take those 800, non restricted shared-walled units and convert them into 400 "Patio Homes" and I think we can both be considered on the same page, righ now.
See how simple that may be?
These homes can be made "affordable" and all of them can be in star patterns like you wrote in your original post on my blog.
Viewing all the parked cars near shared-walled condominium projects, makes me still too skiddish to accept any of these types of condominiums.
I don't know about Senior lofts because Bob promised that all of his Senior Housing Units would have full access without needing to use any steps or stairs, and I highly doubt that Bob would consider an elevator for the small lofts in his illustrations.
The third lane Bob proposes is only on the northbound side of Western and only in front of his property. Where might you put the third lane(s)on Western?
I don't see any of the "10%" of the four-bedroom units Bob mentioned to me last January. What is your opinion as to why you left those types of units out?
Does your proposal include the total number of bedrooms Bob left out of his DEIR? If you have a total count, what might that be?
How many school aged students might come out of your proposal?
I haven't done a cound on an all non-age restricted "Patio Home" development, but I strongly suspect that a 600 unit section of this type might generate students in the 400-650 student amount, I first imagine.
I would have to admit that 600 Patio style homes bring in larger families than traditional shared-walled condominiums might, but an SFR is an SFR and could be the "dream home" of a first time homebuyer."
Your position "b" is not one I share. I think if the road through the naval property were built and extended to a new set of ramps to the 110 freeway, as illustrated on my blog, will be useful to many, many folks in northwest San Pedro and folks trying to get to the 110 freeway from P.V. Drive, North. The road with ramps will ease the stresses on 5-points, Anaheim, P.C.H. and allow for better access to and from the new Target, too.
It would also allow for more direct access to Gaffey and the shopping south on Gaffey, in downtown San Pedro.
Your proposal might be almost what Bob is going to use as his "new" plan, as far as total numbers go, I believe. He may go for a 960-Senior Housing unit count and and 740-non-age restricted units.
Your proposal may be the last, greatest hope for something close to what Bob wants to build.
MW
Mr. Wells,
I am waiting for the number of bedrooms just like everyone else. That could affect the total count of my proposal. I estimated that it would be an even split between the different floorplans, but if there are too many 4-bedrooms, the total count of units should be reduced.
As far as eliminating the non age-restricted attached units, I don't feel that would benefit the community. Part of the appeal of this type of project is the broad range of types of housing available. Eliminating the attached units completely would severely limit the type of people who wouldbe able to move into the development.
If you my proposal, this is not Bisno's plan reduced by 25%. He does not provide for patio homes, and his number of attached units is more than double what I would like to see. And you will also see I propose 25% more Senior housing (as a minimum). If there is a trade-off, he should take one unit from non-age restricted attached for each unit of additional Senior housing; leaving the number of patio-homes alone.
On another note, there are a lot of "bait-and-switch" rumors circulating. Those have to be originated by people who know absolutely nothing about planning. As I have stated before, once there is a Specific Plan, it is law and must be followed. This is the best possible protection for those worried about "bait-and-switch".
It is my belief it is not in the best interests of the most ardent R-1 supporters to have the general population know they would be protected by a Specific Plan. Therefore they do nothing to educate the public, but rather let them run around in the panic generated by their lack of knowledge.
Tom Field
hell, i would support 2,300 units if there was an adequate infrastructure to support it -- i.e. a LIGHT-RAIL LINE to PEDRO
but since that isn't going to happen anytime soon, anything above 1,200 is just too damn big.
Tom, why is 1400 units going in downtown not enough shared walled housing for San Pedro? Your wish to provide 800 more of these type of units at Ponte Vista means that within probably a 2 mile area there would be 2,200 shared walled units versus 334, counting your 200 Patio homes and Highland Park's 134 Patio Homes going in near Gaffey.
If the 136-unit Seaport Luxury Homes development is added to the 1,400 for downtown and you proposal for 800, my calculator tells me that there would be 2,336 shared-walled condos, 334 Patio style homes and zero new SFRs on R1 lots built in or near San Pedro.
Just looking at 2,336, 334, and zero sure makes a comparison possible, don't you think.
I am not including age-restricted units in any of these calculations because, like you and Bob, I still wish for that type of home to be built at Ponte Vista.
2,336 versus 334 versus zero looks sobering in my eyes and begs to find some understanding by me and others.
2,670 units, all considered to be "condominiums" in legal terms, with 87.49% being shared-walled units and 12.51% being Patio style units, with zero percent, new SFRs on R1 lots really need further examination, if we use your proposal along with statistics provided about downtown developments you listed on this blog and our knowledge of Seaport.
When looking at these numbers along with the real number of shared-walled condominium units for sale or for rent or for lease in the area of San Pedro seems to bring to light that the largest segment of available housing in the area is just what Bob wants to build more of.
After looking at these numbers supplied by this blog, the Seaport Luxury Homes Web site, Web sites offering for sale more than 23 units at Miraleste Canyon Estates, alone, seems to this commenter that your blog is making a fairly good, but invisible proposal for SFRs on R1 lots, IMHO.
800 more shared-walled units in San Pedro, when I don't know if you included Urban Village in your count, seems very daunting, to me.
What may happen if some other developer comes to downtown and wants to buy up land for even one more large condo development, do we tell them that the inn if full?
If you change those 800 shared wall units into 400 SFRs for a total of 600 Patio homes, this is what the new outlook may look like.
1,536 shared-walled units, 734 Patio style homes, and still zero SFRs on R1 lots.
2,270 non-age restricted condominiums with 67.66% shared- walled units and 32.334% SFRs as Patio styled homes may provide a better real mix for OUR community, perhaps.
Tom, I am looking forward to reading your's and others' comments on this issue.
MW
Howdy Kara,
I am glad your Council didn't have to deal with what Northwest had to deal with when Bob Bisno attempted to pack their Board with his supporters.
There was nothing technically wrong with what Bob attempted, but is was bothersome to some.
MW
Post a Comment