Re: Recirculated portions of EIR [Vol. IV, 8/12], pertaining to VTP DA [Sch 2010061036]

Dear Mayor, Council Members, City Manager, and Staff,

Way swamped now with matters around this coming election, but finally getting to comments about the latest twist in now the 7th year of this VTP closure saga…
To try to get all the pieces more in place again for these comments, I took time to again view (endure, partly) Council’s 11-27-07 starting-point considerations of this sorry situation. Hindsight now suggests, though an admirable effort to protect with such a divided dais, this was probably not the years-eating direction this all should have gone in. Sadness [Mr. Genser and Mr. Katz], anger [the bit callous and disingenuous insensitivity at play], and disappointment [the lack of understandings and early signs of hidden agendas already evincing and in the mix of it all; a decision to accept this horrendous development had clearly already been made for too many then sitting.
Too, I listened again to the more recent 7-24-12 meeting video {a glutton for punishment, I guess}. Again, a stirring, informing exercise. Regrettably, some of the same City managing-harming elements were in motion at that meeting as well. Cynic-making stuff…
As I understand the intention from here, once these latest comments have been processed and the “Revised Final EIR” has been completed, hearings about this new “10-trailer-retaining DA plan” [hereafter called just the “plan”] will eventually then again be considered at City meeting(s)?
It seemed, at the end of that 7-24 fire drill marathon effort, that further concerns [sans any more public commenting?] about this VTP DA were to be wrestled-with again on 8-28, and a final yea or nay on it then to be sought. But, agenda for that meeting shows that intention had been continued. By 8-31, however, Jing had courtesy-e-ed me of this now “Recirculated EIR”, with its notice that a 45-day public review period had been opened for comment offerings.
So, here I be, late again getting to said comments [presently the evening of 10/14], and bleary-eyed not now sure when/if residents may again have opportunity to voice to quash this DA travesty.
Too, not knowing now just when or for how long I will next need to be out of state, I note here my need now to include some other, not-“plan”-specific-thoughts while this whole matter is a bit fresh again, and to put such on City record.
To accord Jing’s request to not rehash this entire ½-decade of actions, I will try in what follows here to put those comments at the end, and offer first here a few about this most silly new “plan”:

1
In this latest report, the 4 apparently key issues: (1) aesthetic matters [shade and lighting], (2) affects of the actual construction, (3) impacts upon the neighborhood, and (4) traffic/transportation affects bearing on this proposed new, 10-trailer-retaining-“plan”, all seem to have been CEQA-examined as if this “retained” part of the VTP could be so considered in isolation from the other parts of the property which would still be developed around and nearly contiguous to those 10 to-be-saved home pads.
Even if all the impacts [in these 4 issue realms] upon whichever of the 42 or so homes left in the main park will be the “chosen” 10 indeed proved acceptably insignificant enough in this new corner–“mini-VTP”?–spot [and I don’t even think that is the case], a bigger point is I think being missed:
Major construction of the bulk of the VTP property will still be proceeding if this little 10-trailer corner enclave was to be set up. All the impacts from work on that grander construction [comments previously well sparred-about, pro and con, in CEQA terms, I think, yes?] will still impact those in the 10 saved trailers too, just as it will the lives of residents in the surrounding neighborhoods and in the City as a whole (traffic from, especially, yes?). Harming impacts from added traffic, already admittedly having yet no remedy, and the noted shadow problem, suggested, it seems, to be just endured and lived-with, as well. I suggest too that, by itself, the very great massing of structures on this land will much change, in a negative way, the mood, look, and very character of the neighborhood. Harm also without any remedy. As to these potted trees to “replace” those already nicely years-now-growing? An insanity deserving no more words.
With all these diligent CEQA “insignificant this”, “acceptable level that” appraisals, I can’t say yet that I see anywhere any meaningfully-effective comparable findings into development impacts upon our “inner environment”; that “place” we each carry around with us all the time. I think it is already tough enough measuring just how really impacting (or not) on us are the large and small changes made when on-the-ground places we move around in get “developed”. Certainly present-day CEQA seems an even blunter tool for the measuring of impacts on said “inner” spaces. For this DA impact-assessing matter then, in addition to CEQA assessing, “gut feelings” also need be included to best see if impacts are critical and harming or not. Re this present new “plan” then, it should count for something, science or no, when the near universal first-look opinion on this behemoth seems to be along the line: “Wow, such tall, close-together buildings on such a tiny property in that more residential-looking neighborhood with shorter buildings! It feels so dense.”

2
Also not talked-of at all on these new “plan” pages is anything about whether it is even a very doable action. Just how simply can 10 of these homes be made a functioning stand-along new mini-VTP, isolated and newly hemmed in betwixt roads and contiguous large buildings, as it will certainly be. Changing housing arrangements for everything from utilities to management in short order sounds easy. Remember, the present VTP evolved to become the community it is over a 60-year period.
Just some of the new enclave life situation-affecting matters given but casual mention so far:
—Who will own and manage this new mini-VTP, and how will that ownership be funded? Will it be at all State- or Federally- protected too?
—Who will be doing all the physical trailer moving- and paperwork/financial matters-work, etc?
—Will these trailers continue to be owned by the residents after this proposed move of a few feet?
—Will they be by RCB protected and continue space-use fee costs from that they now have?
—Will they have the same right to sell (or bequeath) their homes to newly arriving prospective residents as they had before the ’06 closure action blocked (=denied) that right?
—Will Santa Monica’s present VTP zoning protection continue to be honored for this mini-VTP?
—Will there be some assurance set for residents that the plant- and various other on site- appointments existing or set up [when such mini-VTP might be up and running] will be guaranteed against loss or unilaterally-imposed changes?
—Etc…

3
And, what about this Pennsylvania avenue matter? [See “project site, ground floor plan, figure 3.6”] Exactly why is this new road slated to enter the VTP property after a significant “jog” North from its present T-end at Stanford Street? Why that roadway wasn’t run straight through the property to then meet Stewart Street, seems fishy to me [as it has also much angered ~300 neighbors to it who recently signed a petition to try to stop it.]
In context that this entire VTP development will be impacting one of the groups of Santa Monica residents least able to defend themselves against such a willful taking of homes, I must wonder just what has gone on to have set this jogged planning for Pennsylvania avenue in motion. If some seeming simple backroom arrangement can apparently so easily just alter [with the jog] what would seem to have been a more logical straight-through roadway extension effort [but for some power which has quashed that idea?], why should it then be so very difficult (over 6-years now, yes?) seemingly too, as easily, just have this whole DA property change effort stopped too.

…But, enough about this senseless, obfuscating “plan”. I resent even needing to spend energy making comment about it, so flip and disingenuously put forward it feels to have been posed…

1
Per this just typed-of new “plan”, the idea was earlier suggested that “saving part of VTP would be better than losing all of it.” This view has never made any sense to me.
If 109 already set-up and functional, historically unique, resplendent both with nature and community*, visitor curious-making, business-viable homes sites constitute the very last of the truly affordable homes in a City begging for low-cost housing [which they are and it is], just what kind of logic suggests that destroying all but 10 of them could in any way be a good thing to do? [*Much less so blessed now of course, since at the hand of the property’s owner, and since ‘06 his entrepreneur associate, nearly half of such offerings of the place have been trashed.]
Actually, this inane idea about saving a piece of the VTP well demonstrates a keystone point about this badly premised effort to steal our homes and devastate lives here:
Namely, that when an action is commenced based on a false premise, very often actions following on that flawed start also prove very difficulty-plagued.
So, given said “parent premise” idea [“Let’s close the park”], this latest poorly-conceived new “plan” to (graciously?) save a token few of the mobile homes arrayed …coming now as it seems to in response to that called-for exploration of “other feasible options”… seems now but the most recent “troubled-child” action (among the many these years) following on that misguided first greed-driven one…
This incorrect—but if believed true, very others-harming—presumption that a perfectly reasonable wanting to “go out of this VTP business” [though obviously not the only aim] somehow just naturally (magically?) also meant that the laws applying to residents living on the property could simply be ignored, and that the implications arising from the fact that they owned homes [i.e. not-easily-moved objects] on it too, was ignorable as well.
Sadly, to date over these 6+ years, what with all these many obfuscating machinations toward getting rid of the VTP, this wrong thinking has apparently not even been noticed for what it is. Certainly it has not yet been discussed or challenged.
Until this improper aim (to try to remove residents) can be resolved, risk of having homeowner- and residency-rights violated will continue for VTP residents.

2
Since the day this entrepreneur and this property owner* [*who inherited the decades-old business and has acted repeatedly in ways that suggest but distain for it] first moved this closure action, the best way to respond to it remains the same:
Since this property was years back [in ‘88 I think it was] wisely dedicated for mobile home use only in its zoning [in effort to protect that mentioned precious, and now even rarer City resource, its affordable-housing resource], the only legal and reasonable course of action to take since this owner seems determined to cease doing the trailer park management business, is for him [or someone] to find another who does want to run such a business enterprise.
This matter is just that simple. [Simple, that is, if it weren’t for all the others who are drool$ng about other uses for Santa Monica’s east end.]
Just as those who came to the land, found, and bought a trailer on it may later choose to sell it to another who similarly wants to live on the property, so too can this owner divest of the business [and the property] in the same way by selling it to another.
Of important note here [what with this closure contention still looming], is that a selling of the land is in no way directly linked to a selling of any or even all of the homes on it. If a homeowner elects to sell a home, the land remains owned by whoever is then the landowner. If the landowner elects to sell the property, both the home-owning rights of the residents and their rights to continue residency on the land sustain too. All that would change, should the landowner sell the property, is that the home-owning residents would have a new landlord (and new residency-cost arrangement to honor). Key in all this? Residency costs are arrangements between the trailer homeowners and the landowner. Land cost arrangements are between the landowner and the City. Residency and land matters are separate concerns.

3
Essentially, the reason property is zoned is to ensure that community-benefiting usage is appropriately maintained.
In this presently contended matter that possibly could yet bring change of zoning for the VTP property, our City ostensibly is still expecting to keep this 2930 Colorado property a functioning part of its stock of affordable housing [specifically, with these currently RCB-designated 109 low-income home sites arrayed on these ~3.8 acres]…Which is about the ideal home usage for the property, affording, with parking space, ~1000 sq’/pad site [The DA still seems proposing all or most of its abodes to be smaller.]

But, the process on this DA continues on. Just how all this real-time drama about homes and land will yet play out lies ahead yet longer.
Come a time this VTP property ownership might significantly enough cease upholding its VTP management duties, the City would be duty bound to seek remedy, either by force of law to impel again proper utilization/management of the property, or to assist the owner(s) in some way with finding another (or others) to re-commence said managing of the business, whether or not such action might also entail a new property-ownership arrangement.
As matters seem now though, this DA appears still on not-quite-knowable course toward either City acceptance or dismissal of the proposed constructions.
Should the DA be accepted, residents would of course have need of either comparable alternative housing, or adequate in lieu-of compensation for the change of situation the dislocation would impose on them.
Over the course of these 6+ years of closure-related contention, some significant changes have occurred on the VTP property, arguably changes constituting, for lack of a better phrase, some slow-motion thievery on it. Destroying by degree the community asset residents had purchased right to live in and enjoy when buying their homes, some 45 trailers have been non-sale removed or questionably destroyed at the hand of ownership or its agents, in effect dismantling about ½ of the VTP in but 2 decades [VTP took form as a permanently lived-in mobile home park in the late ‘40’s].
Just how this abuse has been allowed to occur with impunity is still a mystery.
If it proceeds, and depending on how satisfactorily the possible above-noted new habitation situation might play out for residents, it remains still speculation at this point on whether or not any damages-remedying litigation might eventually prove necessary for them with the matter.
On the other hand, should this DA be denied, a similar set of unknowable action lines ahead seem possible. VTP ownership likely must already have much invested toward realizing the outcome of this project it desires. And, as with the VTP residents and the recourse options they may need to face, it also remains to be seen whether or not pursuit of remedying litigation would be either prudent or cost effective for ownership to entertain if the DA application ends up being denied.

4
Which brings me to this most interesting statement, from that time in mid-’06, when this effort to cease doing the VTP management business and to close it had its inception:
“In an attempt to avoid litigation over the park closure process, the applicant and City agreed to process a Development Agreement application for a project that, among other things, could qualify for a removal permit under the City Charter.” [4/12 VTP TIR [2.1, p.4]
A full explanation about the laws bearing on this, and about the thinking process and action organizing which then moved setting that MOU and DA in motion, would seem to be information most informative now, even these years later; judging by the extensive efforts and energies already expended on this project process to importantly impact all parties involved [VTP residents, ownership/associates, and City officials and staff] a better understanding about whatever misguided rationale, or misplaced agenda(s) seem to have been at play to move Council in the way it did then might just help to better inform all.
Without such, it seems from matters at present that the process is not headed in a healthy direction.
As has been said in various ways by various persons these years about this multi-issued matter, until the will of our City leadership is felt {for good or ill}, all involved will likely have lives encroached upon in these regards for who knows how much longer.
Certainly, after just reviewing those Council meeting videos [both that on 11-12-07, and the 7-24-12 one], and after these years of prodigious efforts contending, it seems even clearer now that big money is at the table and acting at the expense of justice concerning this development.
Hopefully, somehow, some way may yet be found to neutralize the influence of this greed factor so that lives and rights might again be better served.
Whether or not though, time does seem approaching when litigated action may become the last resort, and matters may well segue in that direction to produce a different kind of pain and aggravation than that already experienced.
How our City’s RCB members next handle consideration of an anticipated re-application for a trailer removal permit for this DA may well be where the matter first comes to a head.
Time will tell…

5
Recently, I came across this interesting website [there may be others] that catalogs some very interesting information about mobile home parks [www.Mobilehomeparkstore.com].
Are you aware that there are presently nearly 800 mobile home parks for sale in America, some 40+ in California, and well over 2000 various mobile home-type trailers up for sale?
…The crime of developer greed at play is going on elsewhere too, yes?…
I have no doubt that on pads in these other, perhaps equally-troubled trailer parks, there are still more than enough good-condition, same vintage-era mobile homes, some undoubtedly still quite suitable as potential replacements for the, as said, 45 which have been removed from these grounds in recent decades.
Restoration of this much-harmed piece of our City’s history could yet be accomplished.
But for the will to do so, of course. Conversations could be had about this. I, and others of those still living here at this now regrettably and shamefully somewhat pillaged property, have a wealth of lived information about the boon such a restoration would- and most certainly- could be.
Actually, invitation to have dialogue about such as this has already been offered.

Plenty enough for now, right?…
With thanks again for the good efforts you ply contending with these sometimes gnarly City needs.
Holding honorably to positions is certainly important, but acting intractably can of course also prove problematic. Hopefully the bit rutted and intransigent manner and tone I see affecting the actions of some of you on that dais can be remedied.
As you are likely also aware [when not made exhausted by what your position there sometimes no doubt imposes], exhortations for justice in this VTP matter has been calling out quite loudly, and more of late. I was much reminded of that after my recent self-immersing re-hearing those Council meeting videos.
The same discordant dilemma we see at play Nationally, money vs people and their needs, is the issue here as well…
Time is certainly short for right action to start prevailing…

David Latham