To the Above-Addressed Parties:

This is a courtesy notice, and confirmation to those already aware, that at 9:55 a.m. this morning I telephoned the City of Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office and told the receptionist and then an attorney who identified himself only as “Bradley” that I wished to give notice of an ex parte hearing at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow, 5/30/12, concerning the Planning Commission hearing that began on 5/23/12 regarding the above, a further hearing on which the Planning Commission threatens to unlawfully hold on 5/30/12. Bradley told me not to worry, they were not going to try to duck the notice, when I said I needed to finish this notice before 10 and had been transferred already once, so I would give it on voicemail if necessary to finish by 10. Before 9:58 a.m. my call was transferred to Deputy City Attorney Alan Seltzer, to whom I finished giving notice of the hearing at 9:58 a.m., as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1204.

The notice was as follows:

Case name, not filed yet: will be Barnes v. City of Santa Monica,
Ex parte hearing: will be held in Department 85 or 86, respectively, depending on whether the case number assigned to the case when it is filed later is odd or even, both courtrooms are located on the 8th Floor at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012,
Remedy sought: TRO and peremptory writ of prohibition, and setting hearing for an OSC re: Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Writ of Prohibition;
Grounds for remedy: Planning Commission threatens to hold hearings on the above without proper notice, with improper direction from the Deputy City Attorney it as to the alleged right of the property owner to go out of the mobilehome park business without any local permits if he just gives a year’s notice of closure of the park under alleged applicable state law (Mr. Selzter told me he did not say that, I told him I heard it on the tape, and we went on to the remainder of the notice), improper ex parte communications between Planning Commission members and individuals in violation of the Brown Act and without notice to any other individuals that if those ex parte communications had been determined to be lawful, that they as well could have such ex parte communications, and several other grounds.

Mr Seltzer then told me he understood the notice and would like to know which courtroom the hearing would be held in as soon as I knew, which I told him I would give him.

Very truly yours,

Brenda Barnes