A Plea for Justice

Mayor​ ​Sam​ ​Abed ​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​ 
Deputy​ ​Mayor​ ​John​ ​Masson
Councilman​ ​Ed​ ​Gallo
Councilwoman​ ​Olga​ ​Diaz
Councilman​ ​Mike​ ​Marasco

I​ ​am​ ​writing​ ​you​ ​today​ ​to​ ​make​ ​a​ ​plea​ ​for​ ​you​ ​to​ ​carefully​ ​review,​ ​and​ ​ultimately
reject,​ ​the​ ​Planning​ ​Commission's​ ​recommendation​ ​to​ ​approve​ ​The​ ​Villages​ ​submittal.
What​ ​we​ ​learned​ ​at​ ​last​ ​week's​ ​planning​ ​commission​ ​hearing​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​ECC:

●  Most​ ​of​ ​the​ ​newer​ ​residents​ ​are​ ​typically​ ​young​ ​families
●  They​ ​were​ ​attracted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​depressed​ ​real​ ​estate​ ​market​ ​in​ ​the​ ​ECC​ ​area
●  They​ ​have​ ​no​ ​connection​ ​to​ ​the​ ​legacy​ ​of​ ​our​ ​long​ ​settled​ ​community
But,​ ​we​ ​also​ ​learned:
●  Most​ ​of​ ​the​ ​long​ ​term​ ​homeowners​ ​are​ ​against​ ​the​ ​proposed​ ​project
●  They​ ​feel​ ​it​ ​is​ ​being​ ​rammed​ ​down​ ​their​ ​throat​ ​with​ ​little​ ​or​ ​no​ ​vetting
●  Even​ ​the​ ​builder​ ​admits​ ​the​ ​Villages​ ​plan​ ​is​ ​inconsistent​ ​with​ ​the​ ​existing
demographic

I also got the sense that everyone in attendance wants to heal the community.
The​ ​problem​ ​is,​ ​we​ ​can't​ ​agree​ ​on​ ​what​ ​'healing'​ ​means...

We​ ​learned​ ​that​ ​the​ ​commissioners​ ​were​ ​influenced​ ​by
●  The​ ​'extensive​ ​planning'​ ​by​ ​NUW
●  By​ ​a​ ​sense​ ​of​ ​urgency​ ​to​ ​'put​ ​this​ ​unfortunate​ ​situation'​ ​behind​ ​us

Neither of which should have played a part in their deliberations. Both issues are incidental, because extensive planning is expected by the planning department on any and all Specific Plan Area proposals that would effectively amend the General Plan. Secondly, the only one driven by a sense of urgency is the property owner who will realize an estimated $80-100M ROI once the builder receives approvals. The staff should not be influenced by pressure or urgency. The residents know it took decades to build the desirability of our neighborhood and it will take some time to properly ​reinvent it.

The staff's report said the builder had adequately mitigated resource and impact issues, but as I read it, the staff never ​quantified the costs incurred by existing residents. Their report fails to reconcile the absence of fire threat escape routes, streetside parking issues, current water shortages and existing water use restrictions or how​ ​maintenance​ ​and​ ​operations​ ​of​ ​'community​ ​recreational​ ​amenities'​ ​will​ ​be​ ​paid​ ​for.

As for the EIR, one commissioner noted that many negative impacts will occur outside of the influence area, so there may be increased wait times at freeway access points:​ ​then​ ​he​ ​suggested​ ​we​ ​all​ ​need​ ​to​ ​"get​ ​used​ ​to​ ​it."

Is that the kind of vacuous attitude you want making value judgements on issues that burden your constituents? My point is, this proposed redevelopment does not adequately protect the current residents from multiple negative impacts on their lifestyle and property. It divides and effectively dissembles The Country Club retirement community.

In​ ​addition,​ ​The​ ​Villages​ ​plan​ ​does​ ​not​ ​adequately​ ​mitigate:
●  Increased​ ​traffic​ ​delays,​ ​accidents,​ ​and​ ​volume​ ​on​ ​residential​ ​streets
●  Resource​ ​restrictions,​ ​noise,​ ​air​ ​pollution​ ​and​ ​wildlife​ ​displacement
●  Loss​ ​of​ ​home​ ​equity,​ ​sight​ ​lines,​ ​privacy​ ​and​ ​iconic​ ​eucalyptus​ ​trees
●  Loss​ ​of​ ​community​ ​identity
●  Loss​ ​of​ ​a​ ​major​ ​tourist​ ​attraction​ ​and​ ​visitor​ ​spending
●  Loss​ ​of​ ​demographic​ ​continuity

As our Council, you have all consistently claimed to have the best interests of current residents in the forefront of your actions. But your actions have not resulted in any measurable improvements or protections for ECC residents. Some homeowners have been forced to move and some are still burdened by property liens over minor encroachments. We have all been affected by the destruction of the environment and dramatic loss of equity. Our once desirable community has recently been referred to as 'blighted'. For the past five years, you have asked for and received the trust of the voters,​ ​and​ ​what​ ​do​ ​we​ ​have​ ​to​ ​show​ ​for​ ​it?

As​ ​leaders​ ​in​ ​our​ ​fine​ ​city,​ ​ask​ ​yourselves​ ​some​ ​difficult​ ​questions:
●  Is​ ​abandoning​ ​the​ ​senior​ ​retirement​ ​community​ ​theme​ ​the​ ​right​ ​thing​ ​to do?
●  Why​ ​are​ ​we​ ​in​ ​such​ ​a​ ​hurry​ ​to​ ​adopt​ ​the​ ​first​ ​plan​ ​presented​ ​to​ ​our community?
●  Is​ ​it​ ​typical​ ​for​ ​large​ ​'infill'​ ​projects​ ​to​ ​get​ ​approved​ ​on​ ​the​ ​first​ ​try?
●  Why​ ​aren't​ ​we​ ​seeing​ ​competing​ ​proposals?
●  Are​ ​we​ ​looking​ ​at​ ​this​ ​community​ ​redevelopment​ ​with​ ​an​ ​open​ ​mind?

Are we to assume that gentrification is unavoidable, despite the current explosion of aging Baby Boomers, adding 10,000 retirees to the populace every single day? Is it wise to impose a young family themed housing development smack in the middle of a large​ ​established​ ​retirement​ ​community?

As I pointed out at the hearing, you have to get this right. This will be your legacy. Please, slow down and consider the long term impacts. The Villages submission is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It has some very good aspects to it, but the overall marketing​ ​theme​ ​is​ ​incongruous​ ​with​ ​the​ ​existing​ ​community.

Our community has already weathered the worst part of this assault, so we can afford to wait a little longer if that is what it takes. As you all well know, New Urban West understands how these things work and they will hang in there until proper design modifications​ ​can​ ​be​ ​realized.​ ​They​ ​think​ ​long​ ​term,​ ​and​ ​so​ ​should​ ​the​ ​Council.

Please send The Villages proposal back to the drawing board and require any revised submission respect the nature and historical significance of our very special existing​ ​retirement​ ​community.

Thank​ ​you​ ​for​ ​helping​ ​save​ ​our​ ​community​ ​from​ ​unfettered​ ​financial​ ​exploitation.

Rick​ ​Elkin