Dear City Council Members and Community Leaders,

In the midst of an election, where candidates are answering questions about what actions they would take if elected to office, events happening around the city suggest that the members of City Council have less effect on what happens than we imagine.

I wrote to you yesterday to share the concerns of Cris Gutierrez, Jerry Manpearl, and Jan Goodman that a request being made by Mayor Richard Bloom and Mayor Pro Tem Gleam Davis that people might have to secure a Temporary Use Permit for events held in the R-1 zone (1) that might involve more than a certain amount of people–say, 150–and (2) that would be to benefit or be sponsored by a commercial, political, or charitable entity or (3) that would impose a fee, contribution, or other charge for entry. Having been to some political events held by Jerry Manpearl and Jan Goodman at their home, I could see why they might be concerned that such a request could result in ordinances that would affect the right of free speech. Also, I asked why the codes we had in place about noise would not cover any situation that was truly out of hand.

Gleam Davis kindly responded that she and Richard had no intention of curbing free speech. Instead, wrote Gleam, their request for tonight’s City Council meeting “is directed to what is happening on La Mesa where a company is running a party house that is hosting many events attended by hundreds of people. Unfortunately for the neighbors on La Mesa who cannot get into their own homes because the street is blocked by traffic and valet shuttles and who have endured threats and damage to trees and other property, it is “broken.” The City Attorney’s office has indicated that there is no regulation against running this party house in a residential neighborhood and so Richard and I have brought forth tomorrow night’s item.” In other words, the City Attorney’s office is saying that the codes we have are not sufficient to deal with this problem. Having stepped into this matter by sending around Cris Gutierrez’s email, I felt the obligation to send around Gleam’s as well.

Next, I received an email from Diana Gordon of Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, saying that people had good reason to be concerned. She went on to write, “Likewise the policy question of whether it’s a good idea to enact an ordinance for 1 house venue problem when there are laws on the books that can be invoked if violated is certainly a legitimate question too. These issues are properly raised WHEN the item is being discussed for exactly the reason you pointed out – unintended and perhaps unconstitutional consequences.” It is always pleasant to receive such validation. I wrote to Diana that I would send this out to the same people who had received my other emails on this subject.

But, before doing that, I spoke to Gleam Davis after the League of Women Voters Candidate Forum at the library auditorium last night and shared with her what Diana had to say. Gleam understood people’s concern about strengthening the City’s position to deal with one outrageous situation. As for Diana’s claim that “there are laws on the books that can be invoked if violated,” she said that the City Attorney’s office seems unwilling to enforce these laws for fear of suits.

Yes, what is a City Council member to do if the City Attorney’s office is unwilling to enforce the laws on the books? I do not mean to make light of this dilemma. We might ask why the Civil Rights Bill should be passed if we already had the 14th Amendment, or why should we then have to pass a Voting Rights Bill after that? We might also ask why those bills seem ineffective in dealing with the expected denial of voting rights in the coming national election by states insisting seeing a Driver’s License before allowing people to vote. As Gleam put it, “We are just legislators.” Her powers are limited to passing laws that can and will be enforced if the laws, presently on the books, aren’t being carried out.
So, the power City Council members have to decide matters is limited. Now, let me put before you a different situation that shows their powers to be so limited that we might question whether we have proper representation in this city.

Before the candidate forum, Northeast Neighbors held it public board meeting upstairs at the library to discuss with two members of the City Planning staff how it was that Fresh & Easy, a store opposed by most who attended a float-up on the store coming into their neighborhood, was now going forward without any public notice other than a personal phone call made to the leaders of two neighborhood groups in that area.

At the time of the float-up, Fresh & Easy had requested variances to come into the building on Wilshire & Harvard formerly occupied by the Magnolia outlet. As a self-checkout store selling alcohol resulting in suits in various other communities for selling alcohol to minors and in violation of new State-laws preventing such sale, a variance was required that the City seemed willing to give. Still, that presented a problem. And, as a change of use–switching from a commercial retail selling audio-video products to a grocery store would require more parking–the square footage of the store required Fresh & Easy to have more parking than was available. Though Fresh & Easy said that it had arranged for parking for their employees at other locations, neighbors who had experienced their residential parking being taken over by employees and customers of other establishments feared more intrusion.

So, how did this project go forward with so much working against it? First, Fresh & Easy decided not to sell alcohol, so no variance would be needed for that. Then, a portion of the old Magnolia store was being divided off from the store to serve as a storage warehouse for an entity other than Fresh & Easy. This would reduce the square-footage enough so that the parking spaces available would fit our present zoning code. This the neighborhood leaders had heard when they were called by Russell Bunim, the Associate Planner overseeing this project. But what we were not told until this meeting was the the entity wiling to pay high rent for storage space that would allow Fresh & Easy to come into the neighborhood was none other than the City of Santa Monica!

The Planning Department, in deciding to pay for storage (when cheaper space, costing taxpayers less, might be found elsewhere), had forced a decision on our City without involving the Planning Commission or our City Council. So much for democracy!
So, having listened to candidates give their answers to the question of what they would do if elected to City Council, I realized that any answers I thought I might give now needed to be questioned.
Thought you’d like to know,

Gregg Heacock

P.S. Here is tonight’s City Council agenda:
=