TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM N.E. NEIGHBORS

Share with othersEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPrint this page

Re: Planning Commission Agenda 9-A

Dear Planning Commissioners:

This evening many significant amendments to the LUCE are being proposed
by city Planning staff in Agenda Item 9-A. A few of the changes recomm-
ended are modifications to the LUCE that were initiated by the community
with support from city staff and elected and appointed officials. These
community initiated changes resulted from an extensive public process and
do not seek to expand upon what the LUCE allows. However, many of the
proposed amendments slated for discussion this evening were not advanced
by the community and have not undergone any community process. Further-
more, many of these staff generated changes seek to significantly alter
the LUCE and to allow an intensification and expansion of development
in our city that is beyond what the community agreed to and beyond what
the City Council voted to support.

Amendments to the LUCE should be adopted only when necessary, such as to
correct an error or oversight, and should not be undertaken lightly. The
LUCE is a document that the community crafted to guide future land use
in Santa Monica, a document that sets the outer limit of what our city
will allow in its built environment in coming years.

As to the nine LUCE amendments proposed by staff, we ask the Planning
Commission to: Support the following amendments to the LUCE, items 4, 5
and 6 in the Staff Report, which went through a substantial community pro-
cess and are supported by city officials:

Eliminate both Activity Centers on Wilshire Blvd. as recommended by staff
and sought by the residents to preserve quality of life in the neighbor-
hoods. Activity Centers are essentially Tier 4 and are inappropriate in
an area that is not transit rich. The Subway-to-the-Sea originally envis-
ioned in the LUCE process is no longer anticipated to occur during the LUCE
timeframe.
·
Eliminate Tier 3 from the Mixed Use Blvd. (MUB) land use designation as rec-
ommended by staff and requested by the residents. In particular along Wil-
shire Blvd. adjacent to Wilmont and Northeast Neighbors, Tier 3 development
would be out of scale and inconsistent with the existing adjacent single
family and multi-family neighborhoods.

Eliminate Tier 3 from the Mixed Use Blvd. Low (MUBL) land use designation.
This will ensure appropriately scaled development that is compatible with
the character of the adjacent neighborhoods.

Reject the following proposed amendments to the LUCE, items 1, 2, 3, 7, 8,
and 9 in the Staff Report, which were recently generated by staff but have
not gone through a community process and are inconsistent with the LUCE
vision:

Maintain the LUCE language “Building Height Standards” to describe graphics
of building heights in section 2.1. The text comports with the graphics in
this section. Several local architects who have examined 2.1 in the LUCE
could find no justification for a change from “Standards” to “Guidelines.“

If the staff seeks to achieve more clarity, perhaps additional text could be
added to the graphics to indicate, for instance, that Figure 4 depicts Tier
1 and that Figure 5 depicts Tiers 2 and 3. Changing the overarching language
to “Guidelines” suggests that the limits are debatable or negotiable, which
was not the intention of the community when the LUCE was drafted. The LUCE
should not be altered in order to allow for interpretation.

Maintain LUCE text references to stepback standards that refer to the 2010
zoning ordinance. The 2010 zoning ordinance was a benchmark that was mean-
ingful to those who participated in the LUCE process and was referenced in
order to provide clarity as to what was acceptable in the LUCE process.This reference was included in order to provide clarity as to what was acceptable
and what was not. It must not be forgotten that these stepbacks were created intentionally and this language in the LUCE is not an error.

Maintain all references throughout the LUCE to “discretionary review” because
this term appears in the document 23 times and it is there for a reason.The
LUCE should define what has to be done by discretionary review and the zoning
should implement that vision. The LUCE should not be rewritten to become
consistent with the draft zoning. To remove or modify “discretionary review”
from the LUCE would be to engage in a wholesale overhaul of the document and
the safeguards the community wanted in its land use plan.

Do not recommend amending the LUCE chapter 2.1 – 41 to include “a 3-foot height
bonus above the 32-foot base height” for 100% affordable housing because a 32
foot height limit was the community mandate for Tier 1 projects in the LUCE and
this area. A real discussion needs to be had in the community about changing
the LUCE to add density, affordable or not. Such a community discussion would
need to address how such changes to the LUCE would increase the population and
how such increases would impact infrastructure and resources, such as water.
the addition of a 3-foot height bonus is beyond the scope of what the community agreed to.

Maintain the LUCE requirement that Tier 2 Residential Projects and Mixed-Use
projects be processed by Development Agreement because this allows community oversight of important projects and such oversight must be maintained as exp-
ressly written and envisioned in the LUCE.

Do not recommend amending the LUCE to allow market rate housing through a Condi-
tional Use Permit in either the Industrial Land Use or Office Campus areas.
Given the significant number of housing developments already in the pipeline,
there is no reason to amend the LUCE in order to open up new areas for housing development. Such changes to the LUCE would increase the population and would
impact infrastructure and resources, such as water.

Regarding the 31 parcels labeled “inconsistent” by staff, we ask the Commission
to postpone discussion of this matter until the community has an opportunity
to understand why such changes are being advanced and whether they are consis-
tent with the LUCE vision.

A majority of these proposed parcel changes would incentivize more intensive development by increasing development rights and are certain to have signifi-
cant impacts on the quality of life for residents of our city. Fifteen of the parcels identified in the report would be changed from Low Density Housing to
the denser development category of Mixed-Use Blvd.

A concentration of these parcels is located north of Colorado Ave. behind the commercial zone. Many of the parcels are currently designated R2 and are dir-
ectly adjacent to homes. To convert these parcels to MUB in order to expand
the Mixed-Use Blvd. along Colorado would be to intrude into an existing low
scale neighborhood rather than protect it. This change would incentivize the
removal of existing single-story buildings that act as transitions and buffers between the commercial street and dwellings, violating the LUCE promise to pre-
serve existing neighborhoods.

In the case of the parcels themselves, not only would their change to MUB encou-
rage intensification and impact nearby residents, but the change would also
impact the small businesses located there as well as their employees. Invari-
ably these workers and small businesses will be displaced, changing the char-
acter of the area and our city.

Below is a section of the map showing in black boxes the parcels that staff pro-
poses to change from R2 to Mixed-Use Blvd. adjacent to Colorado Blvd. as well as photographs of some of the existing businesses that serve as buffers to homes
north of Colorado Ave.

Duplex buffered by single story office building on an “inconsistent parcel” north
of Colorado

Small business on “inconsistent parcel” buffers single family home north of Colo-
rado

This snapshot from a neighborhood is offered as an example of how many of the proposed parcel changes will densify our city at the expense of existing resi-
dents and small businesses. Planning staff has not provided a rationale for
changes such as these. It is not sufficient to label them “inconsistent.”

Discussion of the proposed changes to these 31 parcels should be postponed until
the community has had adequate time to have questions answered by staff and to discuss whether such revisions to the LUCE in terms of their collective impact on Santa Monica.

Sincerely,

The Board of Northeast Neighbors
CC: Santa Monica City Council and Clerk

City Clerk – please include this document in its entirety in the public record
for this agenda item.

DRAFT OF LUCE GOALS MAY BE CONSIDERED TONIGHT

Share with othersEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPrint this page

The nineteenth Planning Commission hearing on the Draft Zoning Ordinance
will be held tonight. Over the course of 18 hearings, the Planning Comm-
ission has reviewed the draft Zoning Ordinance and discussed a variety of
issues related to land uses and development standards throughout the City.

These discussions and proposed changes to the draft Zoning Ordinance have
resulted in the need to consider corresponding revisions and clarifications
to the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). This hearing will address
the following LUCE amendments for preliminary review and comment:
• Consider amending the title of all “Building Height Standards” graphics
in Chapter 2.1 of the LUCE to “Building Height Guidelines” to clarify that
the graphics do not establish mandatory development standards.
• Consider striking the following text from throughout Chapter 2.1 of the
LUCE: “similar to the established stepback standards of the zoning ordin-
ance in effect as of May 27, 2010.”
• Consider clarifying throughout the LUCE that Tier 1 is baseline, by-right development up to the discretionary review thresholds established by the
Zoning Ordinance.
• Consider eliminating the two Activity Centers on Wilshire Boulevard locat-
ed at Wilshire Boulevard/Centinela Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard/14th Street.
• Consider removing Tier 3 from the Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB) land use desig-
nation with the exception of the following MUB areas: Lincoln Boulevard
south of Wilshire Boulevard; 4th Street between the I-10 freeway and Pico
Boulevard; Within the area bounded by Colorado Avenue, Olympic Boulevard,
20th Street, and Cloverfield Boulevard; Consider removing Tier 3 from the
Mixed-Use Boulevard Low (MUBL) land use designation with the exception of
the following MUBL areas:Broadway, Colorado Avenue, Within any remaining Ac-
tivity Center boundaries
• Consider amending the text on LUCE page 2.1-41 (first bullet on the left)
to include the following: “and a 3-foot height bonus above the 32-foot base
height”.
• Consider eliminating the requirement that Tier 2 Residential Projects and
Mixed-Use Projects with Residential Only above the first floor be processed
by development agreement unless the projects provide nonresidential uses
above the first floor.
• Consider allowing market rate housing in the Industrial Conservation and
Office Campus land use designations through approval of a Conditional Use
Permit in addition to allowing affordable housing by-right.

In addition to the LUCE amendments, this hearing will also address potent-
ial changes to the existing LUCE map that may be required for certain par-
cels, principally to address inconsistencies between existing zoning desig-
nations and land use designations. The Commission will review and comment
on staff’s preliminary analysis regarding the 31 parcels in the City whose
land use designations may be changed to create consistency between zoning
and land use designations.The staff report identifies the specific parcels
in the attachments. The staff report can be found at http://www.smgov.net
/Departments/PCD/Boards-Commissions/Planning-Commission/.

The Planning Commission may hold a preliminary review and comment on addi-
tional LUCE amendments and LUCE map changes. Any LUCE and LUCE map changes
would require formal Planning Commission review/recommendation and Council
action. This process would be commenced by staff’s preparation of and the
Commission’s action on a Notice of Intent to initiate the LUCE amendment
process.

Work on this edition of the state-mandated land use and circulation elements
of the City’s General Plan began in 2004, the year it was due.It was approved
in principle in 2010.

LAST CALL: RESIDOCRACY VOTE TO ENDORSE COUNCIL CANDIDATES

Share with othersEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPrint this page

MIDNIGHT TONIGHT, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30 IS DEADLINE

GO TO RESIDOCRACY.org

Residocracy is Taking Our Town Back from Developer Interests One Giant
Step at a time. Help us elect City Council Members who will stand up
to Developers and fight for you !!!

GO TO RESIDOCRACY.org

This is our first endorsement process and it is your opportunity to let
your voice be heard. Tell us who you want Residocracy to endorse for
the Santa Monica City Council elections.

We have circulated a questionnaire for candidates to complete that focuses
on issue of concern to residents. All of the questionnaires we received
from candidates are posted at the site. Only those candidates who returned
the questionnaires are eligible for endorsement by Residocracy and our Com-
munity Network of Residents.

GO TO RESIDOCRACY.org

Also posted are the recommendations of the Residocracy Advisory Board and brief descriptions of how the Board-supported candidates reflect the Residocracy vision.

Voting will end at midnight on Tuesday Sept. 30, so please make sure that you submit your vote by then.

All Residocracy members who joined our Community Network of Residents before our City Council Candidates Forum on July 28, 2014 are eligible to vote.

Again, Thank you for your support and for being a valued member of our Community Network of Residents.

The Residocracy Advisory Board

Brought to you by the Santa Monica Residents who shut down the massive 765,000 square foot Hines Development Project

Copyright © 2014 Residocracy, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website to receive important Residocracy notifications.Our mailing address is:Residocracy 1112 Montana Ave, #358
Santa Monica, CA 90403. Add us to your address book

ABB 1999 MUST BE SIGNED TODAY, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30

Share with othersEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPrint this page

The long-awaited State Historic Tax Credit, AB 1999, will create an
important new incentive for preservation and economic development
through the rehabilitation of historic buildings. It was passed unan-
imously with bipartisan support in both the California Senate and
Assembly and now is on Governor Jerry Brown’s desk. The Santa Monica
Conservancy Board urges you to join us in asking Governor Brown to
sign this important bipartisan legislation today.

* Call the main number (916) 445-2841 or
* Email the Governor’s legislative director Gareth Elliott at gareth.elliott@gov.ca.gov

What will this bill do for our state and our community? The bill
amends several sections of the state tax code to allow for a basic
20% or, in certain limited areas, 25% investment tax credit for
qualified rehabilitation of income-producing commercial and for
owner-occupied residential properties.

If signed by Governor Brown, AB 1999 will create an important new
incentive for economic development through the rehabilitation of
historic buildings. Taking effect in January of 2015, it will gen-
erate more revenue for the state than it expends, stimulate rehabi
litation and adaptive reuse, generate income to the local economy,
and increase public safety:

* The tax credit pays for itself. This is a financial incentive
that leverages private investment in historic rehabilitation pro-
jects and generates more revenues to the state than it spends.
In California, from 2001 to 2012, $329.8 million in federal tax
credits generated $347.5 million in federal taxes, 27,673 jobs,
$1.5 billion in Gross State Product and $111.2 million in state
and local taxes.

* Historic tax credits are a stimulus to encourage preservation
and rehabilitation of historic buildings. Studies in other states
conclude that as many as 2/3 of projects would not have been und-
ertaken without state historic tax credits. A study for the Com-
monwealth of Virginia highlights that 67% of developers would NOT
have undertaken projects if it weren’t for their state historic
tax credit.

* Rehabilitation is a local activity, with real benefits to local
economies. A study of the State of Ohio tax credit program demons-
trates that for every $1 in tax credits, $3 is returned to the lo-
cal economy.

* A rehabilitated building is a safer building. Rehabilitation
typically improves the fire and life safety features in a build-
ing, including seismic safety. The recent 6.0 earthquake in Napa
points to the benefit of improving seismic safety and the work
yet to be done.

What can you do to help? Contact Governor Brown today!

See the California Preservation Foundation website for more in-
formation and a sample letter.

Thank you for your support of this important statewide incentive
for preservation!

CITY’S DECEPTIVE LAND GAME CONTINUES

Share with othersEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPrint this page

Dear Planning Commissioners:

As chair of the Residents Coalition, I am deeply disturbed by Staff’s recent
release of an additional 31 “inconsistent” parcels.

On December 10, 2013, neighborhood groups began requesting in writing that
Staff re-designate all improperly converted “A” lots back to residential use.
At that time, residents and the Planning Commission were told that the LUCE
map contained all converted parcels. In January 2014, a “new” map was re-
leased with more parcels. When Staff published a list of 89 “A” lots and residentially zoned properties, residents were again assured that the list
was complete. Over months, the Director toured neighborhood groups with a comprehensive PowerPoint. When residents specifically asked if there were
other properties of any kind that Staff would recommend for re-designation,
we were again assured that the list was complete.

Now, shortly before the Planning Commission’s discussion of LUCE Amendments,
Staff has released 31 additional “inconsistent” parcels. These properties
equate to multiple acres across the city.

For nine months, at Neighborhood Council, Wilmont, NOMA, Northeast Neighbors, Planning Commission and other meetings, the Director of Planning has told
residents that all inconsistent parcels (not just “A” lots and residentially
zoned properties) have been revealed to the public. Four months ago, he was
also asked specifically – in writing and verbally – to clarify the rezoning
of the YWCA property. He did not respond. Resident leaders meet with Staff
often and in good faith. But it has become utterly clear to us that the zon-
ing process lacks transparency and that we are unwelcome to fully partici-
pate.

It is highly inappropriate that a discussion about these 31 “inconsistent”
parcels take place at the October 1 Planning Commission meeting. Neither
residents nor the Planning Commission have the time to identify each prop-
erty, much less explore the ramifications of land use changes to adjacent
residential neighborhoods.

Please postpone the discussion of the 31 new “inconsistent” parcels and re-
quest that Staff hold a public meeting with the neighborhood groups to permit residents to ask questions and clarify Staff’s recommendations. Without clarification,the public cannot provide the Commission with informed public
comment and residents cannot take part in the process. A Staff PowerPoint
on the night of the Planning Commission discussion does not allow the public
to participate in any meaningful way.

Again, I am disappointed in our city’s lack of transparency.

Regards,

Taffy Patton, Chair, Residents’ Coalition

HURRY! LAST CHANCE TO VOTE FOR WHOM YOU WANT RESIDOCRACY TO ENDORSE FOR CITY COUNCIL

Share with othersEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPrint this page

Voting stops at midnight Tuesday, September 30th

It’s your last chance to vote for Residocracy’s E-Endorsement of
City Council Candidates for the November 4 elections.

Click here now: https:www.Residocracy.org/You_Vote_to_Endorse.php

Residocracy is Taking Our Town Back from Developer Interests one giant
step at a time. Help us elect City Council Members who will stand up
to Developers and fight for you !!!

This is our first endorsement process and it is your opportunity to
let your voice be heard. Tell us who you want Residocracy to endorse
for the Santa Monica City Council elections.

We have circulated a questionnaire for candidates to complete that
focuses on issues of concern to residents. All of the questionnaires
we received from candidates are posted at the site. Only those candi-
dates who returned the questionnaires are eligible for endorsement by
Residocracy and our Community Network of Residents.

Click to read candidates’ responses to our questionnaire

Also posted are the recommendations of the Residocracy Advisory Board
and brief descriptions of how the Board-supported candidates reflect
the Residocracy vision.

The voting period will end at midnight on Tuesday Sept. 30, so please
make sure that you submit your vote by then.

All Residocracy members who joined our Community Network of Residents
before our City Council Candidates Forum on July 28, 2014 are eligible
to vote.

Again, Thank you for your support and for being a valued member of our
Community Network of Residents.

Sincerely,

The Residocracy Advisory Board

RESIDENT CALLS ON SMPD TO STOP PROTESTERS AT EDISON

Share with othersEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPrint this page

A building contractor (Superior Wall Systems – Richard Hudson president)
from Orange County who has some sort of labor dispute with the school
district has decided to hire extras to protest at Edison Elementary accus-
ing the district of racial bias.

These hired protesters with their signs have reached the threshold under
the criminal statute for having intimidated and annoyed the children there
who expressed to their parents their fears.

I call upon the SMPD to enforce this statute by what ever means at the
city’s disposal to assure these children are neither hindered nor put in
fear as they attend this schoolas a matter of their routine.

Mr. Hudson has determined to use the low road and demagoguery by race
baiting in this example and the good folk of Santa Monica will have no
sympathy for such tactics preying upon children and their families.

This company can avail themselves of redress through the court if they
choose or demonstrate at the school board or city hall, but not where
children learn and play regardless of race creed color or religion as
this despicable company alleges.

Stewart Resmer
Santa Monica

BERGAMOT STATION — ALL ABOARD

Share with othersEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPrint this page

LA Observed story by Bill Boyarsky 9/10/14

Santa Monica’s Bergamot Station Art Center and its old industrial surround-
ings is a dramatic example of how rail transit lines are changing the app-
earance, the employment and residential style of a Southland shaped by the automobile. Good-bye dated little enclaves, known only to local residents
and a few aficionados of art and food. Hello expensive boutique hotels,
shops and restaurants.

Bergamot Station, at 2525 Michigan Avenue near the intersection of Olympic
Boulevard and 26th Avenue, is a collection of five old industrial buildings
housing 27 galleries, designer studios, other artistic facilities and a café.
It’s the best place on the Westside for artists to exhibit and sell their
works. And for art lovers, it’s enlightening and much fun to visit.

Bergamot Station tells a lot about the area—past, present and future. It was
built, we’re told by Wikipedia, in 1875 for the steam-powered Los Angeles and Independence Railroad. It was named for the Wild Bergamot, a flower that once flourished in the area. Later, it was a station for the Santa Monica Airline
trains, part of the Pacific Electric red car system. It closed in 1953, except
for occasional freight train use and sold to the city by the Southern Pacific.

Eventually, galleries leased the old SP buildings, giving us the Bergamot Sta-
tion we have today.

Rail is returning to the old station. The Expo line, running from downtown Los Angeles into Santa Monica, will have a station at 26th and Olympic. That has
spurred a wave of development proposals that could make the dowdy intersection
into a mini-Century City—hopefully one more pedestrian friendly than the
chilly original. It will be called Bergamot Transit Village, with big office
and residential businesses plus retail. If you think Olympic Boulevard is crowd-
ed now, wait until you drive past the transit village. Better you should take
the train.

The future of Bergamot Art Center, on the edge of the proposed huge village,
is at stake in all this. Much to the dismay of some of the artists and Berga-
mot Station veterans, the city wants to bring the center into the 21st Century
while retaining the funky galleries and assuring space for the Santa Monica
art museum. It wants to pull more revenue from the site with possibly a hotel,
more cafes and some retail. Tuesday night, the city council voted to give the
Worthe Real Estate Group the job of developing the center. But one thing is
certain about Santa Monica: The opponents won’t give up. This fight will con-
tinue until building permits are awarded, some time in 2017. Expo will be
completed into Santa Monica in 2016.

This is happening along every transit line. Soon people will work downtown
and live on the Westside or visa versa, doing their commuting by train. Boyle
Heights will be a short train ride away, as will the Crenshaw district, the
growing North Hollywood art scene and the foodie-loving San Gabriel Valley.
Back to the days of the Santa Monica Airline, pulling into Bergamot Station.
All aboard.

HIMMELRICH, McKEOWN, McKINNON ENDORSED BY CRAAP

Share with othersEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPrint this page

Thirteen of fourteen Council candidates attended the September 22 three-
hour candidates’ forum focused on Santa Monica Airport issues and hosted
by CONCERNED RESIDENTS AGAINST AIRPORT POLLUTION (CRAAP). Of the twelve
candidates that remained after one left early, all were in favor of Mea-
sure LC and opposed to Measure D. All were in favor of closing Santa Mon-
ica Airport.

A two-part pledge was sent out to the six outstanding candidates. The
pledge asked if they would, 1) champion bringing to City Council an
item to address posting CA Proposition 65 warning signs on the observa-
tion deck at the airport; and 2) bringing before City Council a recom-
mendation by the Santa Monica Airport Commission to limit air pollution
from aircraft perations at Santa Monica Airport. The pledge litmus test
left five candidates. The choice of three became clear when we polled
several members.

Candidates’ views on development and traffic influenced the decision.
There is an apparent nexus between the influx of private jet traffic
back in the mid 1980’s at SMO with the commencement of over-development
and the accompanying gridlock west side traffic.

Incumbent Kevin McKeown and Planning Commissioners Richard McKinnon and
Sue Himmelrich were the clear choices for endorsement to represent Santa
Monica residents on the City Council, the Council that will provide
direction with regard to the future of Santa Monica Airport as well as
addressing over-development in Santa Monica.

CRAAP had already strongly endorsed CA Senator Ted Lieu for Congress, Dis-
trict 36.CRAAP strongly endorses Santa Monica Measure LC and strongly op-
poses Measure D.

“Don’t be deceived by the fear mongering, lies and “D”eception of the big
money national aviation interests”, says Martin Rubin, CRAAP Director. “The
aviation interests do not include the interests of Santa Monica residents.”

CITY OFFICIALS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS STRIKE OUT

Share with othersEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPrint this page

Tuesday night, the City Council heard from about 40 people who had lost
or were losing battles with their landlords.

Presumably, Santa Monica pays its City Attorneys $303,000 each a year
because they’re exceptional lawyers, but for reasons she didn’t bother
to explain, Marcia Moutrie, lead City Attorney, said her office can’t
represent Santa Monica tenants who’re being harassed, sued and/or evicted
by their landlords, and, without lawyers in court with them, tenants
are doomed, according to Moutrie, because “judges prefer landlords to
tenants.”

The City has anti-harassment statutes, which have been occasionally up-
dated, but have never been adequate. Here and now, real estate, including
rental apartments, is booming and some landlords are taking extreme mea-
sures to profit from the boom – harassing tenants in order to drive them
to move out. refusing to accept their rent payments, violating their pri-
vacy, converting rental apartments to condos, selling their property, and
so on.

Some landlords and real estate brokers are doing bulk mailings – regular
and email. One such mailer declared that the “median sales price” of
houses has increased 37% north of Montana in a year and it’s “a sell-
er’s market.”

Moutrie alleged that the tenants’ real “enemy” is Sacramento, citing two
measures that the Legislature passed about 20 years ago that weakened
Santa Monica’s rent control.

“Ellis” permits landlords to go out of the rental business.“Costa Hawkins”
permits them to raise rents to “market rate” when a long-time tenant is
replaced by a new tenant.As far as we know, our representative, Assembly-
man Richard Bloom has yet to propose a bill that would assist tenants.

After a listless, meandering discussion, Moutrie and Council members
agreed that the City would develop some sort of “education program” for
tenants aimed at assisting them in foiling landlords’ efforts to expel
them, as well as searching for “patterns” in the drive to dump current
tenants that might enable the City to sue the landlords.

The Council also agreed to hire a part-time person, not a lawyer, at
$60,000 a year, to oversee the paltry plan. For the Council, which man-
ages a half-billion-dollar annual budget, and pays a startling number
of employees over $300,000 a year, to pinch pennies on an overdue effort
to restrain greedy landlords, seems immoral as well as politically arro-
gant. Only Councilman Kevin McKeown had anything of substance to say.

One of the speakers was City Council candidate Sue Himmelrich, a lawyer
who is of Counsel to the Western Center on Law and Poverty. The Dispatch
has endorsed her and anyone who believes that rent control and affordable
housing are as vital to Santa Monica’s future as they have been in its
past should endorse her now and vote for her on November 4.