Hi everyone,

Some of you may have already gotten this, but it’s [as usual] so full of useful information and clear logic from Zina,I thought to forward it on, on chance you hadn’t and might also still be wrestling with just what to say to the Planning Commission on this critical Wednesday.

I know I’m in struggle with that task, what with but 3 or fewer minutes to talk, so so much crying out for dispute in those 2200 report pages, and it being our own lives on the line this time. So tough trying to figure just what may sway them to recommend that Council quash this Development Agreement. But, if enough e or talk Wednesday, expecting that they indeed do just that, who knows, eh?

Anyway, with my apology for this unbidden long e, a thank you for indulging it, and a ‘good luck’ to us all !

To my friends so far away, your heart-felts are of course of equal import and would be neat as well. Demands for justice travel pretty well digitally, too…

And, attached, a brief piece [to be aired in SM tomorrow], recounting a bit the Park drama here these past 20 years…

David Latham
(310) 315-2660

From: ZinaJosephs@aol.com
Subject: Village Trailer Park — ALERT! — Planning Commission – May 23 – 5-A

Sample letter — Please ask your friends, neighbors, and relatives to send email also. And save your emails, as they will be needed again when this comes before the City Council, probably in July:

To: Planning Commission — TedSMPlan@gmail.com , Jim_Ries@hotmail.com , GNewbold@gmail.com , Kennedyrcb@aol.com , parryj@gte.net , bikeitday@gmail.com , andersonsmpc@yahoo.com , jing.yeo@smgov.net, kyle.ferstead@smgov.net

Subj: Village Trailer Park DA – May 23 Planning Commission agenda
________________________________________________________

Dear Planning Commissioners,

Regarding the May 23rd agenda item 5-A – Development Agreement for Village Trailer Park,
2930 Colorado Avenue:

I strongly urge you to vote against any recommendation to the City Council to go forward with a Development Agreement for Village Trailer Park.

1) Village Trailer Park has 109 units of truly affordable housing that would have to be replaced at taxpayer expense.

2) Village Trailer Park is currently zoned R-MH (residential-mobile home), and the City has 100% discretion over whether or not the zoning is changed.

3) The City has an obligation to protect the homeowners in the Village Trailer Park.

Village Trailer Park is an irreplaceable neighborhood that provides affordable home ownership opportunities for low income residents. It should be preserved.

**************************************************************************************************************************

Background: The items below include impacts on air quality, tree canopy, neighborhood preservation, traffic in the neighborhood and throughout the city, housing for families, zoning, affordable home ownership, population density, and cumulative impacts.

1. Air Quality — Removing the existing mature trees and shrubs under the proposed project would have a negative effect on air quality.

2. Biological Resources — Under the proposed project, more than 100 mature trees would be destroyed, along with shrubs and flowering plants. The goal of the city’s Urban Master Plan and the “city as arboretum” is to increase canopy, especially in low-canopy areas of the city.

3. Land Use — “Neighborhood preservation” is one of the primary goals of the LUCE. The Village Trailer Park utilities were upgraded a few years ago. With proper care, all 109 spaces at Village Trailer Park could easily be filled, and the neighborhood could flourish.

4. Neighborhood Effects — Significant and unmitigatable neighborhood traffic impacts will occur if the proposed mixed-use project is constructed.

Other concerns about the proposed project which were described in the Draft EIR:

A. The proposed project includes 393 residential units, with 227 market-rate condos — including 108 lofts, 83 one-bedroom units, and 36 two-bedroom units. How is the city to develop stable family neighborhoods with such a preponderance of lofts and one-bedroom units? 84% of the market rate units in the proposed project will only house one or two people. Of the apartments, there would be 73 studio units (38 affordable) and 93 one-bedroom units (14 affordable). Again, these would house only one or two people.

In contrast, the existing spaces at Village Trailer Park pads are 22 feet wide and 30 to 40 feet deep, large enough for double-wide mobile homes. Double-wide mobile homes can include 2 bedrooms and large living rooms, enough space for 4 residents. 109 double-wide mobile homes could house 109 families, i.e., 436 residents.

B. Section 2.3 – “Significant and unavoidable” impacts in the neighborhood, with increased traffic volumes in intersections and on neighborhood street segments. Section 2.21 describes 2,360 net new daily car trips, with “significant and unavoidable” impacts.

C. Section 4.3 – “Biological resources” – Village Trailer Park currently has 107 trees and a variety of ornamental shrubs and flowers. The trees consist of 27 species, including 27 jacarandas, 17 Brazilian pepper trees, 16 weeping figs, and 1 coast redwood tree that is not considered “viable for relocation.” Section 4.3-7 states that “The majority of the trees currently on the site would be removed.” If maintained, the existing trees “could be used by migratory birds such as northern mockingbird, Anna’s hummingbird, house finch, and snowy plover.”

D. Section 4.10-3 – One of the LUCE goals is to “preserve and enhance neighborhoods.” It’s difficult to see how destroying the Village Trailer Perk would preserve this neighborhood, which has existed since 1950.

E. Section 4.10-9 – “Zoning” – Village Trailer Park is zoned R-MH — it is a “Residential Mobile Home Park District” which was created by an earlier City Council. The current City Council is under no obligation to either change the zoning or grant a variance.

F. Section 4.10-17 – “The proposed project would provide 52 affordable housing units.” Currrently, Village Trailer Park residents own their mobile homes and rent their spaces. The space rental is covered by the city’s Rent Control ordinance. If the residents are displaced from their mobile homes, they will have to pay much higher rents for a “studio” apartment. They will no longer be homeowners.

G. Section 4.10-18 discusses “Cumulative Impacts,” including 2834 Colorado Avenue (192,000 sq ft — Colorado Creative Studio Project/Lionsgate) and 2848-2912 Colorado Avenue (300,000 sq ft — Roberts Business Center). But it does not include the potential cumulative impacts from the following:

- Agensys (153,000 sq ft at 1800 Stewart)
- Bergamot Transit Village (750,000 sq ft on Olympic between 26th and Stewart)
- New Roads School (117,000 sq ft expansion at 3131 Olympic)
- Paseo Nebraska (356,000 sq ft at 3025 Olympic,1820 Berkeley, and 3020-3060 Nebraska)
- SMC Academy of Entertainment & Technology (48,750 sq ft expansion at 1660 Stewart)

Including Village Trailer Park’s 399,581 sq ft, this adds up to 2,031,331 sq ft of development in that one small area. Where are the estimates for the cumulative environmental impacts from all of that? Where is the Bergamot Area Master Plan for which the city accepted more than $600,000 from the federal government?

H. Section 4.13-4 – “Population density” in terms of housing units per square mile. LA County has 861 housing units per square mile. Santa Monica has 6,134 housing units per square mile. Why is the city considering approval of 4-story buildings to further increase density?

I. Section 4.13-9 – “These rent-controlled housing units would be replaced…so not net loss of rent controlled housing occurs.” This ignores that fact that the current units are owned, and only the spaces are rented. There used to be 109 rent-controlled spaces at Village Trailer Park. Is the VTP owner planning to build 109 rent-controlled apartments?

In addition, only 16 new units are proposed to be at rents affordable to persons of low income, while 52 units would be deed-restricted as “affordable housing.” Where is the definition of “affordable housing”?

J. Section 4.13-10 – “Population displacement impacts would be less than significant.” That statement would probably be of cold comfort to the VTP resident who was persuaded to move out, ended up living in his vehicle, and died of exposure. The VTP owner is now in the process of emptying out the trailer park and requiring residents who leave to sign confidentiality agreements. The significance of the “displacement impacts” are a matter of opinion. Moving from a mobile home with lots of windows and cross-ventilation, surrounded by trees and shrubs and flowers, into a concrete box with windows/light only on one side would have quite an impact on anyone, let alone an elderly and/or ill person.

K. Traffic impacts – It’s estimated that the following intersections will be rated at D, E, or F in 2020 (on a scale of A to F, with A referring to free-flowing traffic, and F referring to congested intersections):

20th and Wilshire,
20th and Santa Monica Blvd.,
20th and Olympic,
23rd and Ocean Park Blvd.,
Cloverfield and Santa Monica Blvd.,
Cloverfield and Colorado,
Cloverfield and Olympic,
Cloverfield and the I-10 westbound off-ramp,
Cloverfield and the I-10 eastbound on-ramp,
Cloverfield and Ocean Park Blvd.,
26th and Wilshire,
26th and Colorado Avenue,
26th and Olympic,
Yale and Broadway,
Stewart and Olympic,
Stanford and Colorado,
Stanford and Colorado,
Centinela and Santa Monica Blvd.,
Centinela and Broadway,
Centinela and Colorado,
Centinela and Pennsylvania,
Centinela and the I-10 westbound ramps,
Bundy and Olympic,
Bundy and Pico,
Bundy and the I-10 eastbound on-ramp,
Bundy and Ocean Park Blvd.,
Barrington and Olympic.