Sunday, June 3, 2007

The Answer is in the DEIR



The resolution says:

"3. Adequate amounts of open space for active and passive recreational use must be included. Developer shall be required to provide open space matching or better than the ratio of 'persons served per park acre' recommended by City of Los Angeles Parks department within this development."


The City of Los Angeles Parks department recommends 4.2 acres per 1000 people. The Ponte Vista park of 5.46 acres would 1300 people or about 429 SFRs...."

The answer lies in the schematic of the property and in the DEIR.

If you examine the legend, you will see open area, view corridors, gardesn, water features. These all count toward the "open area" requirement. In the Ponte Vista DEIR, Section IV.F Land Use, page 28, it states, "...Approximately 40% of the projects developed acreage would consist of landscaped common areas and parks. The Project would be abundantly landscaped and would feature such pedestrian amenities as walking paths, benches, fountains, water features, distinctive light poles, and street signage, all of which would be incorporated in the master landscape and streetscape plan.

The residential component of the Project would incorporate open space and recreational areas including an approximately 2.5 acre central park (with community clubhouse and pool), an approximately two-acre waterscape concourse, and an approximately 0.5 acre park/recreation area within the senior community segment of the Project. Additional social and recreactional amenities (e.g. community rooms, swimming pools, and work-out rooms) would be distributied throughout the site. The Project would be consistent with this objective.

Let's do some quick math. 40% of 62 acres equal 24.8 acres. I think that more than fulfills the 3rd point of the Central Resolution with a consideration of 1,700 units. "Parks" can include indoor areas, such as workout-room, pools, et.. And outdoor areas don't all have to be some type of athletic field. Sitting quietly and looking at a nice watercourse is attractive to many people also.

So please, look at the entire pictue before you draw your conclusions.

Tom Field


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why do you give Mark a hard time when he puts out traffic numbers and then you put out numbers based on your own Ponte Vista vision and distort it with the DEIR?

Tom said...

Anonymous 11:50am

I don't even know how to begin to answer that question. How is taking numbers from the DEIR which has been reviewed by the Planning Department a "distortion"?

The difference between what I do and Mr. Wells do is that it is written down in black-and-white. It is not the product of numbers snatched from the air because I think that is what they should be, then use multipliers I like (with no empirical basis) to get a traffic number that is high enough to get hysterical about and get everyone else worked up also.

Tom

Anonymous said...

Only place I saw 1700 units written down in black and white is on this blog.

Tom said...

Anonymous 12:04pm

You should check the DEIR, under Land Use. It is Option 3.

Besides, even if it was only in this blog, it was offered as an alternative to 2,300 units and tried to get some patio-homes in the mix. What's wrong with you, first you want alternatives for a smaller project, now when one is suggested, you want to criticize it.

I guess there is a certain group of people who will only be satisfied if we roll back the clocks to 1953.

Tom

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.