SM COLLEGE OFFICIALS DENOUNCE PROP D AS “FALSE”

By John Fairweather

Santa Monica College officials have denounced as “FALSE,” (their cap-
itals) an ad by backers of Measure D that claims SMC is in talks to
develop additional land at Santa Monica Airport.

The Measure D ad says, “SMC is already making deals for the (airport)
land for a 4-year campus.” Supporters of Measure LC asked SMC about
the ad’s claim.

The Measure D claim is “a 100 percent fabrication,” according to a stat-
ement issued by SMC’s Senior Director of Government Relations & Institu-
tional Communications, Donald Girard. “SMC has not engaged and is not
engaged with the City of Santa Monica, its staff, or any of its elected
officials, in any discussion regarding additional use of lands at the
Santa Monica Airport,” the statement says.

SMC currently leases a three-acre parcel of non-aviation land at the air-
port; it’s called the Airport Arts Campus. Two years ago, the city and
SMC concluded a land swap involving another three acres of non-aviation
land at the airport. That parcel is adjacent to SMC’s ten-acre Bundy
Campus, which is not on airport land.

“The phony ad by the “D” backers is part of their six-month campaign of
deception,” said John Fairweather, chair of the Committee for Local Con-
trol of Santa Monica Airport Land (Yes on LC, No on D).

The same ad claims that If LC wins, “seven politicians backed by develop-
ment interests will begin immediately to redevelop 40 acres of airport
land without voter approval.” In fact, no one knows what the makeup of
the City Council will be after Election Day, Nov. 4, and the alleged re-
development plan is unspecified in the ad because it’s nonexistent.

“What we do know is that every viable council candidate, incumbent and
challenger, has said “Yes on LC, No on D,” as have the League of Women
Voters of Santa Monica, the Sierra Club, the Residocracy advisory board,
Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City and many others,” Fairweather
noted.

Measure LC guarantees that if – IF – flight activities at SMO ever ended,
only low-density development such as parks, playing fields, recreational
areas and cultural/educational facilities such as those already in place
would be allowed on airport land. The City Council could not override
this; only a vote of the people could do it.

“D’s” phony ads are only part of the story. The president of the Santa
Monica/Malibu Classroom Teachers Assn., Sarah Braff, is decrying the
unethical use of her name in Measure D mailers, listing her as a suppor-
ter. In fact, she said, she supports LC and opposes D, calling the ”D”
campaign “full of falsehoods and misrepres-entations.”

Braff is among a number of LC supporters who’ve discovered their names
unethically listed in such ads. The “D” campaign has refused to acknow-
ledge this deceitful practice or apologize for it.

For more information, please go to ItsOurLand.org.

MALIBU DEMOCRATS BACK DE LA TORRE AND LOYA IN ELECTION

Incumbent School Board member Oscar de la Torre is the only board candi-
date from Santa Monica to win the support of the Malibu Democratic Club
Board of Directors in his campaign for re-election to the Santa Monica
Malibu Unified School District.

The Malibu Democratic Club has a constant membership of more than 80 and
a mailing list of more than 560. It’s also L.A. County’s oldest Democra-
tic organization, with a long history of activism and community involve-
ment.

At its monthly meeting earlier this week, the Club Board voted overwhelm-
ingly to support de la Torre In a district in which Democrats outnumber
Republicans by more than 3 to 1.

“I am humbled to have received the support of the Malibu Democratic Club
Board of Directors in my campaign for re-election to the school board.
The Malibu Democratic Club has always supported my candidacy.”

He is also the only candidate in the school board race to have received
the endorsement of the Sierra Club and State Superintendent of Public In-
struction Tom Torlakson..

Maria Loya, de la Torre’s wife, who is running for a seat on the Santa Mon-
ica College Board of Trustees, has also received the support of the Malibu
Democratic Club.

Loya is the only candidate for College Trustee to have received the support
of the Malibu Democratic Club.

“I am honored to have the support of the Malibu Democratic Club in my race
for the Santa Monica Community College Board of Trustees,” said Loya.”Their confidence in me and my candidacy is very humbling.”

The Malibu Democratic Club joins the Los Angeles County Democratic Party and
the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor in endorsing Loya for Santa Monica
College Board of Trustees.

CITY OFFICIAL APPEARS TO ATTEMPT TO MUZZLE RESIDENTS

The following email blast was sent to Wilmont members:

Complaint Lodged Against Santa Monica Mayor Pam O’Connor Alleging Il-
legal Campaign Contributions

Dear Wilmont Member:

A group of Santa Monica residents known as the “Transparency Project” (https://www.facebook.com/SMRevealed) is alleging that Santa Monica
Mayor Pam O’Connor has been accepting illegal campaign contributions.
A complaint detailing thirty-one (31) instances – accompanied by over
70 exhibits – has been filed. It alleges and enumerates Mayor O’Con-
nor’s repeated violations of City Charter Amendment XXII, the Taxpa-
yer Protection Amendment of 2000 (a.k.a. ‘the Oakes Initiative’) for
illegally accepting campaign contributions from developers, after vot-
ing to approve their projects.

In the latest move, Santa Monica’s City Attorney has referred the
Transparency Project’s complaint to the Public Integrity Division of
the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office. Santa Monica City Attorney
Marsha Moutrie stated that because she “reports directly to the City
Council” (of which the mayor – and subject of the complaint – is a
member) “her office has a conflict of interest, as does the Santa Mon-
ica Police Department.”

The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division describes
its responsibility concerning public officials as follows: “Public offi-
cials are elected to positions of public trust. In the event of any bre-
ach of this trust the Public Integrity Division will investigate, and
if appropriate, prosecute criminal misconduct by any elected public off-
icial.” Specifically, concerning election and campaign violations, the
PID explains: “Because the integrity of the election process is crucial
to a free and democratic society, the District Attorney’s Office must be
vigilant in enforcing all laws that regulate the election process. In
this regard, the Public Integrity Division is charged with investigat-
ing and prosecuting allegations of voter fraud, illegal voter registra-
tion practices, illegal campaign practices, illegal campaign contribu-
tions and falsification of candidacy papers.” (See http://da.co.la.ca.
us/pid.htm).

The Transparency Project alleges these serious allegations relate to
serial batched, coordinated contributions that Ms. O’Connor accepted
from owners, principals, or senior officers of three of the biggest
developers in Santa Monica – Hines, Macerich, and Century West – after
she voted to award each developer a substantial public benefit.

The Transparency Project describes itself as an all-volunteer group of
Santa Monica residents concerned about openness and accountability in
Santa Monica city government and politics. The Transparency Project
formed in 2010 after a developer-funded PAC refused to timely disclose
contributor information to Santa Monica voters. Project members track
political contributions to city council candidates and officers to en-
sure that representatives serve the public’s best interest.

The above is reported information. The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood
Coalition expresses no opinion on the validity of the allegations con-
tained in the complaint at this time.
******

Now we have the email from the City:

Dear Mr. Eubank,

First, I’d like to introduce myself, as we have not had the pleasure of
meeting yet. I am the new Public Affairs Officer for the City of Santa
Monica. One of my responsibilities includes administering the Neighbor-
hood Grants.

We have received an inquiry concerned about the email blast sent from
the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition on Tuesday, October 21, 2014
with the Subject: Complaint Lodged Against Santa Monica Mayor Pam O’Con-
nor Alleging Illegal Campaign Contributions.

The reason for the concern stems from the use of city Neighborhood Match-
ing Grant Funds to distribute information containing political content,
which is a restricted use of the funds. According to the paperwork your
organization submitted at the end of the FY 2013/14 year, the WMNC@wild-
apricot.org email address used to distribute this email was funded by
the matching grant funds (Website/Email Hosting renewal fee 6/28/14-
6/27/15).

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and feel free
to follow up with me if there is any information you think we should have.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Warm regards,

Debbie Lee
Communications & Public Affairs Officer
Office of the City Manager

Response From Laurence Eubank
Chair, Wilmont

October 27, 2014

Ms. Lee:

Thank you for your note.

The letter to Wilmont members regarding Transparency allegations re:
Mayor O’Connor was for informational purposes and specifically stated
that the Wilmont Board did not endorse nor vouchsafe for the informa-
tion contained therein.

Transparency’s complaint was sent to newspapers and the Los Angeles DA
office – in that regard it is in the public domain.

If someone alleges that the Complaint contained ‘political content’,
please explain to us how information readily available to the public is
‘political’. For that matter, if we include the name of any city offi-
cial in any of our correspondence, does this make the matter ‘political’?

The Mayor has publically explained she is returning some of the contri-
butions contained in the Complaint, actions which we intend to inform
our members. Is that political content?

For example, at the City Council meeting tomorrow night (10/28) a dis-
cussion will take place that involves water – assuredly a major concern
of Wilmont and all Santa Monica residents. Definitely, we will alert
our members to the public positions espoused by Councilors on the mat-
ter. Does that make it political?

The Wilmont Board are volunteer residents dedicated to informing our
neighbors on the issues before our city. To claim that our communcia-
tions have politic comment when that information is in the public do-
main is spurious and, to my mind, a simple intimdation tactic malevo-
lent to our exercise of open public debate.

If this does not conclude the matter, I invite you to address our mem-
bership in person at your earliest convenience.

Thank you and, on behalf of Wilmont Board members, our very best regards.

Laurence Eubank
Chair
******

To the editor:

This is to notify you that I have made a Public Records request of the
Santa Monica City Attorney regarding communications between Rod Gould,
City Manager, Elaine Polochek, Deputy City Manager, Deborah Lee, Commun-
cations and Public Affairs Officer in the City Manager’s office, and
Mayor Pam O’Connor regarding the email communication copied above, which
I believe can be characterized as an attempt to muzzle the Wilshire Mon-
tana Neighborhood Coalition, a Santa Monica neighborhood group, for pro-
iding information to its members.

As a long-time Santa Monica resident and participant in the Neighborhood
Council, I want to know the chain of command that resulted in this egre-
gious intimidation of a neighborhood group and an attempt to shut down dis-
closure of allegations of illegal campaign contribution behavior by Mayor
O’Connor that are now under investigation by the City Attorney and the
Los Angeles DA’s office.

Cordially,
Ellen Brennan

CAMPAIGN PITCHES LOW AND ON THE OUTSIDE

A rough count of campaign mailers received to date indicates that there
are not only about three times the number we received in 2012, but they
are larger and, by turns, angrier and loonier than they were in ’12.

Our nomination for the lowst mailer thus far is from Mayor Pro Tem Terry
O’Day’s PAC, “Responsible Leadership for A Better Santa Monica.” It’s
funded by Edward Thomas Company, which owns and operates Shutters Hotel
and Casa del Mar, and Ocean Avenue LLC, which owns the Miramar Hotel.

O’Day came to the town’s attention in 2008 when he and Judy Abdo ran
the bogus “Save Our City” campaign, which was funded by $700,000 from
developers, and featured prominent residents telling lies about Prop
T destroying everything we cherished.

Now O’Day urges us to vote for Pam O’Connor and Frank Gruber, “outstand-
ing principled leaders.”

“Principled leader” O’Connor has not only spearheaded the building boom
that has led to a perpetual traffic jam, and oversized hulks of buildings
that insult and diminish this gloriously idiosyncratic beach town, but
she has allegedly profited from it, according to the 31 complaints filed
by the Santa Monica Transparency Group that are now being examined by
the District Attorney.

“Principled leader” Gruber was among the leading and noisiest opponents
of Prop T, a residents’ ballot measure backed by the Santa Monica Coali-
tion for A Livable City (SMCLC) that would have got commercial develop-
ment under control. Gruber reviled SMCLC as selfish “no-growthers” and
urged voters to defeat Prop T, which ultimately they did.

O’Day says, “I’ve worked with Pam O’Connor on the City Council, and she
knows how to make things work, which is why I supported her as our Mayor.
She is a nationally recognized leader in historic preservation…” probably
in the same sense that O’Day is,when he describes himself as “a renowned environmentalist.”

O’Day rattles on. “Ever since, I joined our planning commission over ten
years ago, Frank has been a mentor and confidant to me. He’s a leading
voice for education, housing and parks…” – like virtually everyone on the
planet.

Obviously, if what voters want is “responsible leadership, principled lead-
ership,” they had better look beyond O’Connor, Gruber and O’Day, who are,
as the cliche goes, the problem, not the solution.

.

AN UNPRECEDENTED HANDOVER OF POWER — TO THE PEOPLE

By John Fairweather

Measure LC represents an unprecedented handover of power over development
from the council to the people. It has never happened before in the hist-
ory of our city, and likely never will again. LC exists for one reason
only, and that is the existential threat to the City and its people that
measure D represents. Without the threat of D, the council would not have
been forced to go one-up and create LC.

Council knew that in the anti-development environment, if LC did not abso-
lutely hand control over development to the people, then it could not suc-
ceed in defeating D. They had no choice and had to send the language back
to city staff multiple times because staff simply could not believe the
council insisted on giving up so much power to the people. LC is a once-
in-a-lifetime opportunity to guarantee the future quality of life for the
entire city and surrounds and to place power over development in the hands
of the people not the politicians. Measure D does nothing to protect us.
Measure LC is an insurance policy against future councils, staff, develop-
ers, and any number of other threats known or unknown.

If you don’t trust the council, vote for LC, it takes their power over de-
velopment away and gives it to the people.

A vote for measure D takes the power over development (and everything else)
away from both the council and the people, and places it in the hands of
the aviation lobby.

Oct 29, 2014

RESIDENTS’ ORGANIZATIONS WEIGH AND MEASURE THE ISSUES

www.MidCityNeighbors.org

Dear Friends, Neighbors and Residents,

Other neighborhood associations and resident groups are doing extensive
research on important local issues. Their efforts are to be applauded
as all have jobs, families, and other activities which would no doubt be
less aggravating than the work you will find below. We thank them and
are fortunate to be able to share the results with you.

Stacy
Vice President
Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors

To: Santa Monica City Council

From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors

Re: 10/28/14 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8B – Stage 2 Water Supply
Shortage Implementation and Proposed Drought Surcharges

Dear City Council:

California is experiencing a significant drought and all effort possible
must be made by all communities to increase water conservation. To achieve
the 20% reduction in water use called for by the State, a proposed Water
Shortage Response Plan has been crafted by City staff that sets surcharges
or fines for water users who exceed designated allotments. Differing wat-
er conservation thresholds are being proposed for Single-family home con-
sumers, Multi-family customers and commercial customers. After consider-
able study and discussion, it is the position of the Board of Northeast
Neighbors that the proposed surcharge plan should be revised in many res-
pects.

We ask that the City Council take the following actions in its direction to
Staff regarding Agenda Item 8B:
1. Increase the water conservation threshold for Single-family home
customers. The proposed threshold is too low and will impact a significant
number of households that have already made great progress in reducing their
water consumption. Many households responsibly began water conservation
efforts in 2009 in response to the City Council directive to the community
to reduce water usage by 10% and ongoing City water conservation programs
since then. The drought surcharge program should be structured to incentiv-
ize heavy water users to reduce, not penalize households that have already
made reductions.

The City is setting a threshold to try not to penalize those who are conser-
ving water. The question is: What is the right threshold? If you are below
the threshold, you are not subject to the drought surcharge. If you are above
the threshold, you have to reduce by 20% compared to your 2013 water usage or
be penalized. Under the proposed plan, if residents of Single-family homes con-
tinue to use water as they did in 2013, 58% of them can expect to be fined.
That bar for Multi-family households has been set higher, such that if resi-
dents of Multi-family homes continue to use water as they did last year only
20% will be subject to fines.

It’s worth noting that Single-family home customers as an entity use only 26%
of the city’s water and yet they are being targeted for the greatest reduction. Multi-family home customers in comparison use 41% of the city’s water.

The thresholds for Single-family home water use should be increased so that homeowners don’t bear a disproportionate burden for water conservation.

2. Increase the water reduction target for commercial customers to 20%
as proposed by Staff so that the threshold is commensurate with what will
be required of residential customers.

3. Do not allow exemptions of individual water meters as proposed by
Staff. Removing the requirement to install individual water meters from
apartments will not incentivize water conservation. To the contrary, it
will result in end users who are less educated about and less accountable
for their own water usage and consequently will make the water reduction
program less effective.

4. Make enforcement of the individual water metering of apartment units mandatory, and immediately stop Staff’s current practice of exempting new
development from having to meet this Code requirement.

5. Explore programs to retrofit existing multi-family unit buildings
with mechanisms to monitor individual dwelling unit usage. Many apartment
buildings do not have individual water meters. Consequently residents of
these buildings cannot know their individual usage or be held accountable
for overuse. Providing a mechanism to monitor individual dwelling unit
usage would create a system where residents could be incentivized to reduce
water consumption through pass-through water billing based on actual usage.
It is our understanding from a recent meeting with Planning Director David
Martin that there are devices that can be installed that monitor usage to
individual units in existing buildings with only one water meter.

6. Do not approve the proposed increase in staffing or employ contract-
ors to implement the surcharge program through the creation of a new bureau-
cracy described as a “Water Conservation Unit.” The City already offers and implements a number of effective rebate and conservation outreach programs
and has been doing so for a number of years. The drought surcharge is a minor
change to our billing structure that can and should be handled by existing
staff. Santa Monica already has one of the highest staff-to-resident ratios
in the state. The proposed new staffing would be funded by the very drought surcharges that they are working, ostensibly, to prevent. Any new program
can and should be handled by existing personnel in the Office of Sustainabil-
ity and the Environment, which should be directed to set priorities accord-
ingly.

Instead of using funds generated from drought surcharges for additional staff,
the revenue should be used to offset any anticipated reduction in revenues
associated with the expected decrease in water usage due the water conservation programs. This surcharge revenue could be used to offset the cost of operating
the current water system, replace and upgrade existing facilities and fund the
SWMP. This will create less pressure or need to increase general water rates.

7. Delay the 32 development agreements in the pipeline to avoid further
burdening our local water supply. The staff report observes that despite an
increase of roughly 3,000 new housing units in the last ten years, total water
use in Santa Monica decreased by 1%. Whose water reduction practices were responsible for this reduction despite the additional housing? It is important
to understand how new development can be expected to impact demand for water.
Surely no one believes that the addition of 3,000 new apartment units over the
last decade result in reduced water use in our city. While new units are more
water efficient, they are still generating additional demand and existing resi-
dents should not be required to bear the burden of this new water drain. Curr-
ently three new hotels have been approved by Council and there are 2,300 apar-
tment units pending Council approval.

8. The drought should not become an excuse to increase taxes on residents
and existing businesses and to hire additional City staff. The City of Santa
Monica already has one of the highest staff-to-resident ratios in the state.
Members of the community are very concerned that plans to manage water use in
Santa Monica are carried out in a manner that is fair to all existing residents
and businesses. While Santa Monica gets most of its water from our own wells,
we also purchase water from the Metropolitan Water District. Unless develop-
ment is constrained until the drought emergency has been addressed, water con-
umption will increase in Santa Monica and the price is one we will all have to
pay.
Sincerely,

The Board of Northeast Neighbors

City Clerk – Please include this letter in the public record for the 10/28/2014
City Council Agenda Item 8B.

From Ocean Park Association (OPA):
[REMINDER]
Two Critical Meetings on Drought and Water Restrictions

OCEAN PARK ASSOCIATION – SEVERE DROUGHT IN CALIFORNIA – FIND OUT WHAT CAN YOU DO

The state of California has declared a severe drought situation and is calling
for a 20% reduction in water use by everyone. Come to a special community meet-
ing, organized by OPA, on Water Use and the Drought at the Ocean Park Library in Monday, October 27, 2014 from 6:30 – 8:30 PM. Gil Borboa, SM Water Resources Manager; Dean Kubani, Director of Office of Sustainability and the Environment;
and Kim O’Cain, Water Specialist with the Office of Sustainability and the Environment will be there to inform us of the coming water restrictions and to
answer your questions.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON WATER RESTRICTIONS

WHEN: Tuesday, October 28, 2014
WHERE: City Hall
TIME: 6:30 PM

City Council will be discussing Stage 2 Water Emergency Recommendations
including penalties for use beyond daily allocation for homes, apartments
and businesses. So far, recommendations to reduce water usage by 20% have
been voluntary; with the continued drought, water use reduction may become
mandatory.

***

A group of Santa Monica residents known as the “Transparency Project” (https://www.facebook.com/SMRevealed) is alleging that Santa Monica Mayor
Pam O’Connor has been accepting illegal campaign contributions. A complaint
detailing thirty-one (31) instances – accompanied by over 70 exhibits – has
been filed. It alleges and enumerates Mayor O’Connor’s repeated violations
of City Charter Amendment XXII, the Taxpayer Protection Amendment of 2000
a.k.a. ‘the Oakes Initiative’) for illegally accepting campaign contribut-
ions from developers, after voting to approve their projects.

In the latest move, Santa Monica’s City Attorney has referred the Transpar-
ency Project’s complaint to the Public Integrity Division of the Los Angeles
District Attorney’s office. Santa Monica City Attorney Marsha Moutrie stated
that because she “reports directly to the City Council” (of which the mayor –
and subject of the complaint – is a member) “her office has a conflict of in-
terest, as does the Santa Monica Police Department.”

The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division describes its responsibility concerning public officials as follows: “Public officials are
elected to positions of public trust. In the event of any breach of this trust
the Public Integrity Division will investigate, and if appropriate, prosecute criminal misconduct by any elected public official.” Specifically, concerning election and campaign violations, the PID explains: “Because the integrity of
the election process is crucial to a free and democratic society, the District Attorney’s Office must be vigilant in enforcing all laws that regulate the el-
ection process. In this regard, the Public Integrity Division is charged with investigating and prosecuting allegations of voter fraud, illegal voter regis-
tration practices, illegal campaign practices, illegal campaign contributions
and falsification of candidacy papers.” (See http://da.co.la.ca.us/pid.htm).

The Transparency Project alleges these serious allegations relate to serial
batched, coordinated contributions that Ms. O’Connor accepted from owners, principals, or senior officers of three of the biggest developers in Santa
Monica – Hines, Macerich, and Century West – after she voted to award each
developer a substantial public benefit.

The Transparency Project describes itself as an all-volunteer group of Santa
Monica residents concerned about openness and accountability in Santa Monica
city government and politics. The Transparency Project formed in 2010 after a developer-funded PAC refused to timely disclose contributor information to
Santa Monica voters. Project members track political contributions to city
council candidates and officers to ensure that representatives serve the
public’s best interest.

The above is reported information. The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coali-
tion nor Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors express an opinion on the validity
of the allegations contained in the complaint at this time.

ISSUES FROM FERGUSON: WHAT’S THE IMPACT ON SANTA MONICA?

The Committee for Racial Justice presents: “Issues From Ferguson –
What’s the Impact on Santa Monica?” on Sunday, November 2. It will
feature a discussion with Jacqueline Seabrooks, Chief of the Santa
Monica Police Department.

What about Santa Monica? Where do we stand on the issues arising
from the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri: racial pro-
filing, militarization of police, use of force training, cultural
competency of police, fair representation on the police force of
people of color, etc.

Chief Seabrooks has more than three decades of proressively res-
ponsible municipal policing experience. As of May 29, 2012, she re-
joined the Santa Monica Police Department as its 17th Chief of
Police.

She was instrumental in developing and implementing a cultural comp-
etencies curriculum in the Santa Monica Police Department. She is a
long-term supporter of those activities which empower youth by en-
hancing their experiential opportunities, and is involved with the
Santa Monica Police Activities League (SM PAL); she serves on the
Boards of Directors for the Santa Monica Boys & Girls Club and the
Human Relations Council. She holds both Masters and Bachelor’s de-
grees in Public Policy and Administration from CSU, Long Beach and
CSU,Dominguez Hills respectively.

The issues raised at Ferguson are very significant and we hope many
community members will attend. It will be held in the Thelma Terry
Building, Virginia Avenue Park, 2200 Virginia Avenue Park in Santa
Monica.
.
We will begin at 6 PM with a potluck supper. The program will begin
at 6:30 pm. (served by Big Blue Bus lines #7 and #11).

Co-sponsors of the event are the African American Parent, Student,
Staff Support Group; Virginia Avenue Park; and the Church in Ocean
Park.

For more information, please call 310-422-5431.

SANTA MONICA COALITION FOR A LIVABLE CITY: FACTS ABOUT WATER

Coming Soon: Water cutbacks and fines for residents. A gusher of new
projects for developers.

700 new pack-and-stack apartment units approved.Three new hotels ap-
proved. Four more hotels pending.

3,500,000 sq. ft. of pending and approved new developments, equal to
seven new Santa Monica Place malls.

Pam O’Connor has NEVER voted against a large development in 20 years
on the City Council.

NATL GEOGRAPHIC – California is experiencing its worst drought since
record keeping began in the 19th century, and scientists say this may
be just the beginning

SANTA MONICA DAILY PRESS — Santa Monica is preparing water cuts.

SANTA MONICA LOOKOUT — During Stage 2, water allowances would be 68
gallons of of water per person per day. The average person uses 80 to
100 gallons of water a day.

SANTA MONICA PUBLIC WORKS: Mandatory restrictions would require a 20
percent reduction in water use, Fines would be charged for exceeding
your water budget.

If you have any interest in the City’s plans for managing our water
supply in the drought that has seized our state, you should attend
tonight’s City Council meeting (6:30 pm, City Council chambers, City
Hall.

COUNCIL MEMBER GLEAM DAVIS ZAPS FORMER COLLEAGUE

Bobby Shriver and his supporters are touting his experience on the
Santa Monica City Council as a reason to vote for him for County
Supervisor. For more than three years, I served on the City Council
with Bobby Shriver and I am supporting Sheila Kuehl. Let me tell you
why:

Bobby decided to run for City Council because he was angry that the
City’s enforcement of its hedge ordinance would require him to trim
the hedge around his home. Before the hedge issue came up, he never
had shown any interest in local politics or local issues.

Bobby was sufficiently upset about the hedge issue that he decided to
run for City Council. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of his
own money on his campaign. No one in our small city had ever seen that
kind of personal wealth spent on a City Council race.

Bobby ran on a platform of collaboration and respect for residents.
Once Bobby was elected, it became clear that this was just campaign
rhetoric.

After he was elected, Bobby was difficult to reach. When he was will-
ing to speak with residents, he often seemed impatient and distracted.
On the dais, he was rude to his colleagues, city employees and members
of the public. He frequently interrupted members of the public and
other council members when they were speaking. Bobby didn’t work well
with others so he did not get very much done.

Soon after he was elected, Bobby’s lack of interest in local politics
resurfaced. Except for a very few issues, Bobby seemed unprepared for
meetings and unconcerned about the matters on the Council’s agenda.
The City Council only meets twice a month, but Shriver completely missed
46 meetings — 1 out of every 5 meetings. He was late, some times as
much as two hours late, to 102 meetings. In fact, Shriver was present
and on-time for only 39% of the Council’s meetings. And he often left
meetings early before the public comment portion of the meeting.

I want a County Supervisor who listens to the public, treats everyone
with respect, and can collaborate with her colleagues. I want a County
Supervisor who shows up on time and is ready to work. I want a County
Supervisor who stays as late as necessary to make sure all voices are
heard. That’s why I am supporting Sheila Kuehl.

Gleam Davis
Santa Monica City Council member

FOLLOWING STORY: ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER’S RESPONSE

OPEN RESPONSE TO COUNCIL MEMBER GLEAM DAVIS’S OPEN LETTER ON SERVING WITH BOBBY SHRIVER

Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Davis’s
letter has all three.

My first reaction: The letter is too ridiculous to dignify with a res-
ponse. But then I decided Davis and Kuehl should not get away with send-
ing people such blatant lies.

The most effective lies are hinged on particles of truth. Let me sort
the fact from the fiction:

1. Bobby did get involved in city politics because he received a
letter from the city threatening him and many others, he soon found
out, with $20,000-a-day fines if they did not cut their hedges to com-
ply with a 1946 law that had not been enforced for decades. About 200
people organized and presented a set of well-reasoned arguments for
taller hedges to the council. The council and city staff basically
told them to take a flying leap. The issue immediately changed from
hedges to the arrogant way City Hall treated the people it was supp-
osed to be serving. I and others met with Bobby and pointed out how
much good he could do on the council. Everyone who enters local pol-
itics has a defining moment—realizing what he could do for the city was
Bobby’s.

2. Bobby had to put a lot of his own money into his first camp-
aign. Davis neglects to mention that his major opponent was the co-
chair of the political machine that has controlled the city for the
past 30 years. The machine’s PAC typically adds around $100,000 to the
funds candidates raise. Another fact check: This was not the first in-
stance of significant personal funding of a Santa Monica council race.
In 1992 an independent candidate spent $65,000, mostly his own money,
on his campaign and lost.

3. Regarding the red herring the Kuehl campaign has been throw-
ing around since January: Only a desperate campaign would take the time
to generate those statistics about meetings and votes. The council min-
utes for eight years consist of about 1,600 pages. If anyone actually
did the work, it would have taken about 20 hours to come up with those
umbers—which means they can feed them to anyone without fear of contra-
diction. Except when attending the funerals of his mother, uncle, and
father, Bobby made sure he was present for every important vote. Santa
Monica voters approved of the job he was doing by re-electing him in
2008 by more votes than any council candidate ever received. None of
his own money went into that campaign.

4. Davis shovels on more untrue, unsupported claims, but for bre-
vity, I’ll end with the most idiotic: “Bobby didn’t work well with others,
so he did not get very much done.” Here’s a short list of what he got
done—and he did all this while part of a 4-3 or 5-2 minority on the
council. That’s the best evidence that he got along very well with his
colleagues and city employees.

· Homelessness is down 20% in Santa Monica, even though it has
increased in LA County. This would not have happened without Bobby’s work.
Because people told him homelessness was their biggest concern, he got the
council and city staff to change policies that were simply helping people
live on the street to programs that helped them move off the streets into
supportive housing. He convinced the council to hire former LA County
Supervisor Ed Edelman as “Homeless Czar.” Ed, Bobby, and city staff work-
ed to create programs that have moved hundreds of people into housing:
the Homeless Court, the Serial Inebriate Program in the jail, and Project
Homecoming, which reunites people with family, are three. Soon 60 chroni-
cally homeless vets will move into a rehabilitated building on the West LA
VA campus. Bobby made that happen.

· Santa Monica Bay had the second dirtiest water in the state.
In 2006 Bobby raised funds and helped run the campaign to pass Measure V,
which provided money to clean the storm water draining into the bay. Water
quality went from D’s and F’s to A’s by 2011. Heal the Bay’s Mark Gold
said, “Measure V never would have passed without Bobby Shriver.”
·
The Annenberg Beach House would not exist, if not for Bobby. He found out
the State of California was ready to take back control because Santa Monica
was not doing anything with it. He got Wallis Annenberg involved, which
brought a grant from her foundation of $27 million and the beautifully
restored public facility we enjoy today.

· Smarter city budgets resulted from Bobby’s watchdog mentality.
City Manager Rod Gould told me, “Bobby made our staff perform better, be-
cause they knew he was going to ask hard questions.” Even though it meant
retribution from unions, Bobby wasn’t afraid to point out that the city’s
pension plans are unsustainable, unless employees contribute to them.
Santa Monica’s police union gave $50,000 to the union PAC supporting Kuehl,
and not because of anything she ever did for public safety.

I could go on, but I hope it’s clear: Anyone who says Bobby “didn’t get
much done” as a Santa Monica City Councilmember has been drinking too
much Kuehl-Aid.

I have served on the Santa Monica City Council for 24 years. During that
time, no other councilmember even came close to working as hard and getting
as many good results as Bobby did. Los Angeles County would be very lucky
to have him as a Supervisor, and that’s why I am supporting Bobby Shriver.

Sincerely,

Bob Holbrook

P.S. Three other Santa Monica City Councilmembers have also endorsed
Bobby, making a council majority.