The Baker Squeeze - Specious Claims

Yesterday we looked at the process by which the Baker family and Baker Ranch LLC introduced their proposed new project to the City. Today we’ll focus on some of the issues and the claims.

CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN

Because the site is zoned commercial, Baker Ranch must get the Planning Commission and then the City Council to change the zoning.  Although the General Plan is not etched in stone, changing it should only be done after a great deal of thinking, research, and discussion. Some of the variables that need to be considered include impacts on traffic, noise, air pollution, schools, public resources, utilities, etc.

TRAFFIC

There was no real justification for changing the General Plan offered by the Baker Ranch people, apart from Larry Tucker’s assertion that a fully functioning commercial area would generate 5 times as much traffic as the proposed residential project. What the Baker Ranch spokesman failed to mention, however, is that the amount of traffic generated by the commercial project is difficult to estimate until it’s been built and leased. Some commercial projects generate a lot of traffic while other types of commercial projects do not. Moreover, traffic to commercial areas tends to be strung out over the day, while traffic to residential areas tends to bunch up at the critical times (e.g., going to work, dropping kids off at school, returning from work). Thus, even though residential projects generate less traffic overall, they can contribute more to traffic congestion because the traffic they generate tends to be at the crunch times.

The Baker Ranch reps also failed to mention that even if the traffic impacts in the immediate neighborhood are less, the residential traffic tends to be directional – headed to and from the freeway, and to and from the schools. Thus, while the immediate neighborhood may not suffer from traffic congestion, as the additional traffic hits the heavily used areas at the peak hours of the day, traffic congestion is exacerbated.

The bottom line is that while residential may generate less overall traffic than commercial, this doesn’t necessarily translate into less traffic congestion.

PUBLIC UTILITIES

Brown outs and “savings days” are no longer rare in Southern California, and it’s probably not in the too distant future that we’ll start getting cutbacks on lawn watering and other measures which reflect the inadequacy of our water supply. With limited water and electricity to meet our current needs, why would the Planning Commission seriously consider adding 250 more homes to the 4,700+ already approved?

The argument that the Baker Ranch people made is that the 250 homes will use less water and electricity than the commercial area. That assertion was made with no evidence, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume it’s true. Even if it’s true, the comparison is not between 250 homes and a thriving commercial project, the comparison is between 250 homes and the current lot or a vacant lot. Even the developers will concede that 250 homes will use more water and electricity and generate more traffic than the current lot or a vacant lot. And let’s face it – that is the true comparison. Because implicit in what the Baker Ranch people are saying is that they are reluctant to go ahead with any commercial development right now nor are they happy with the economic returns from the current commercial application.

Tomorrow we’ll look at the implications of the Baker Ranch proposal.