The Miramar expansion Scoping Meeting/draft EIR will
be held Thursday, May 16, 6:30 to 8:30pm Santa Mon-
ica Main Library, Multi-Purpose room. If you care
about this beach town’s past and future, you will
be there.

Unbelievably, despite the Santa Monica Planning Commission
and hundreds of nearby neighbors asking for a smaller pro-
ject that complies with current City height and density
limits, the Miramar’s newly released plans call for an
even more massive project than they introduced last year,
bringing tremendous impacts to our community.

These hugely controversial plans would bring a massive Las
Vegas-style condominium/hotel/retail project to a transi-
tional, coastal neighborhood of Santa Monica. The com-
munity has and will continue to voice our strong objections
to the enormous impacts of this monstrous 500,000+ square
foot project (about the same size as Santa Monica Place,
but on a much smaller parcel) on traffic, parking, noise,
community character, and historical resources.

Learn more on this site about how the Miramar Hotel expan-
sion is not right for Santa Monica – and join us in demand-
ing that the developer create something that fits our com-
munity!

www.SAVESANTAMONICA.com

NOTE: Scroll down to related L.A. Times story: Icahn vs.
Dell.

Santa Monica College’s Emeritus College, which primar-
ily serves older students, has, like other state-sup-
ported educational programs, suffered cuts in its bud-
get during the recent recession. Now, despite the im-
provement in the state’s financial picture, a bill
(SB 173) has been proposed that would eliminate all
state funding for the program.

On May 10, State Senator Ted Lieu, whose district now
includes Santa Monica, spoke to a group of concerned
Emeritus students. Noting in his opening remarks that
California’s state budget is “turning the corner. Un-
employment is down to 9.4 percent and this is the first
time in a decade that we have a balanced budget with a
urplus. I hope we can restore some of the cuts we have
made.”

As he knew little about SB 173, which was proposed by
State Senator Carol Liu, Emeritus students explained that
the proposed bill would eliminate all state funding for
all noncredit courses for parenting and older adults in
the community college system. After listening to the
students’ defense of the program’s crucial role in main-
taining Emeritus students’ physical, mental and social
well-being, Lieu said he would oppose the Liu bill.

The Associate Dean of the college, Ron Furuyama, stated
the program would be able to offer classes at no charge
this summer.The fall classes will be funded through dona-
tions the program has already received. However, if SB
173 passes, the program will need a new funding source
for the winter session.

Furuyama also noted that the annual budget for the Emer-
itus program is about $1 million and consists mainly of
payroll and benefits costs. The state funding for non-
credit courses is one half the rate for credit courses
and is based on student attendance. Emeritus college has
about 3,200 students and offers about 150 classes.

The college held a number of focus groups with students
to discuss the funding issue and a number of committees
have been formed. One committee is working on alterna-
tives in case the program’s state funding is cut. Poss-
ible alternatives on the table include corporate sponsor-
ships, student fees or membership fees.

A new Emeritus Student Union has also been created and
has been focusing its energy on helping the program deal
with the funding issue.

Governor Jerry Brown’s May Revise of the budget was re-
leased yesterday, but at press time it wasn’t clear whe-
ther the Governor was supporting cutting the funding for
non-credit courses. The state budget is scheduled to be
approved in Sacramento by June 15.

A high-stakes bidding war has erupted for St. John’s
Health Center, a storied Santa Monica hospital, with
a local billionaire teaming up with the Roman Catholic
Archdiocese of Los Angeles on an unsolicited offer.

The latest bid, expected to be formally announced Wed-
nesday, comes from former drug-company executive and
healthcare entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, who said
in a statement the bid has the support of the archdio-
cese. This offer is competing against at least two other
bidders.

One bidder is a group that comprises UCLA Health System
and two large Catholic hospital chains. Another potential
buyer is Providence Health & Services, another Catholic
hospital company.

St. John’s is owned by the Sisters of Charity of Leaven-
worth Health System, a nonprofit chain based in Denver.
Officials there began soliciting offers for St. John’s
this year. No dollar figures have been disclosed publicly.
Whoever wins would inherit a hospital rich in history but
one that is steadily losing ground in a market that in-
creasingly favors bigger institutions. Roman Catholic
nuns founded St. John’s in 1942 and oversaw the rebuild-
ing of the hospital after the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Hollywood stars Jimmy Stewart and Julie Andrews raised
money for the hospital. St. John’s celebrity patients
have included Michael Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor and Pres-
ident Reagan.

This latest development in the bidding adds another chap-
ter in a months-long drama playing out at St. John’s. In
November, its Denver owner abruptly fired most of the
local board members and ousted the top two executives.

In a statement Tuesday, Soon-Shiong discussed the proposal
and described his offer as a “community bid that would
further enhance [St. John's] capabilities, bringing world
class physicians and potentially historic advancements”
in medical care.

Steve Valentine, president of Camden Group, a healthcare
consulting firm in El Segundo, said he expects controversy.
“This could get ugly for a period of time as the plot
thickens,” he said. “It’s a prestigious hospital with lots
of Hollywood firepower behind it.”

St. John’s said no decision on a buyer has been made.

“We are still evaluating our options for a strong partner-
ship to support our ministry at St. John’s,” said Cheston
Turbyfill, spokesman for the parent company in Denver.
“We’re not disclosing any of the people we are talking to.
We will consider any serious, strong bid that ultimately
leads us to like-minded goals.”

Just before the management shake-up last fall, Soon-Shiong,
a major St. John’s donor, and some hospital board members
were working on a deal to buy St. John’s. The change in
management scuttled that proposed deal.

Under this latest proposal, the Chan Soon-Shiong Institute
for Advanced Health, a nonprofit company, would acquire
the hospital with involvement of the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles. A spokeswoman for the archdiocese said the church
“would be involved in ensuring that the hospital continues
to follow ethical and religious directives according to
Catholic teaching.” The church said it would not be invol-
ved in day-to-day operations or funding of St. John’s.
This partnership has the backing of major donors and some
hospital physicians who have expressed frustration at their
lack of involvement in the sale process thus far.

Donna Tuttle, chairwoman of the hospital’s foundation and
former official in the Reagan administration, confirmed
that Soon-Shiong’s offer had been submitted, and she en-
dorsed it. She said she sent a letter backing the bid
Tuesday to Michael Slubowski, chief executive of the pa-
rent company SCL Health System. The letter of support
was also signed by Paul Natterson, president of the
hospital’s medical staff.

In an interview, Tuttle praised Soon-Shiong as a cutting-
edge medical researcher who could take St. John’s to new
heights while maintaining its commitment to the community
and local patients. Soon-Shiong, whose net worth tops $7
billion, is pursuing numerous ventures aimed at accelera-
ting medical breakthroughs and putting more data at the
fingertips of doctors in the field.

“I’m having a hard time intellectually understanding why
you wouldn’t go with his bid. How many hospitals have
this offer in front of them? Is there something personal
here?” Tuttle said.

Speaking publicly for the first time about the hospital’s
tumultuous last six months, Tuttle criticized the Denver
health system for its handling of the entire situation.

“The way it has been carried out has hurt the hospital,” she
said. “What’s been going on at St. John’s has been crazy,
and it didn’t have to be this way.”

The Times first reported in March that a bid involving UCLA
and Ascension Health Alliance in St. Louis was under consid-
eration. Dignity Health, a Catholic hospital chain based
in San Francisco, has also joined the Ascension and UCLA
bid, people familiar with the process said. Dignity offi-
cials couldn’t be reached for comment.

Tuesday, a UCLA spokeswoman said that “it would be inapprop-
riate for us to comment on or speculate about any proposed
sale of the hospital or its future.”

Ascension said previously that it doesn’t comment on pro-
posed deals. Providence, based in Renton, Wash., said that
“at this time we have no comment with regard to the deci-
sion pending by the SCL Health System.”

All three of these bidders have strengths and weaknesses,
said Valentine, the healthcare consultant. But “Soon-Shiong
has the doctor and community support and a boatload of
money to support the hospital. This option cannot be ignored.”

The class is FREE and participants will learn how to
heal themselves, using the vibrations from drums and
other percussions,and have a great time in the doing.

The people who attended Mike’s Drum Circle during the
Church’s Kwanzaa celebration can tell you what a magnif-
icent time we had.

Mike needs a certain number of participants to RSVP.

Please let me know ASAP, if you plan to attend. Pastor:
Rev. Janet Gollery McKeithen.
Email: Minister@churchop.org

http://fryingpannews.org/2013/05/14/the-debt-of-war/#more-21687

It’s a sad time in America, don’t you think?

JIM

Rev. Jim Conn
230 Pacific St #108
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310/392-5056

Associations:
The Frying Pan – Writer: www.fryingpannews.org
CLUE-LA – Member of the Board: www.cluela.org
ABCD – Circle of Friends: www.abcdinstitute.org/
United Methodist – Retired: www.cal-pac.org

Admission and Entertainment are FREE. Food and Ac-
tivities are $1 and up Description:

The ultra-affordable annual SMASH celebration fea-
tures fun for the entire family. Kids enjoy crafts,
games and rides that range from exciting to tame,
art projects that kindle their inner Kandinsky, live
music — by SMASH kids and parent, a car you can
paint, a rockin’ BBQ and delicious food.

Open to bidding by the public, the SMASH Silent Auc-
tion is famous for its remarkable deals and steals.

Don’t miss it! Fair proceeds help fund much-needed
educational programs that are have been and are
being reduced by budget cuts. Help Santa Monica
public schools while having fun with the family!

Bring sunscreen and swimsuits for our water activ-
ities!

School Website: http://www.smash.smmusd.org
Info: 310-396-2640

Dear Commissioners:

This letter is written on behalf of Dave Conrad, the
son of Paul Conrad. This letter is written concerning
Chain Reaction.

On January 22, 2013, the City Council established a
deadline of February 1, 2014 to raise all funds ne-
cessary to repair/”rebuild” Chain Reaction. Without
first consulting the Landmarks Commission, the City’s
Department of Community and Cultural Resources has
established a budget of $500,000 to $555,000 to “re-
build” the sculpture and an alternative budget of
$350,000 to $380,000 to “repair” Chain Reaction.

At its January 22nd hearing, the City Council author-
ized the expenditure of up to $20,000 to temporarily
patch and secure the sculpture’s interior from the
elements. The City Council further committed up to
$50,000 from the General Fund to be used as a match
on a dollar-for-dollar basis with community fundrais-
ing for “rebuilding” the sculpture. An excerpt print-
out from the City Clerk’s Wrap Up of that City Council
meeting is enclosed. (The Minutes of the meeting are
not yet available.)

Because Chain Reaction is a City Landmark and because
“any proposed alteration, restoration, construction,
removal, relocation, demolition, in whole or in part,
of or to a Landmark or Landmark Parcel” requires a Cert=
ificate of Appropriateness (Landmarks Ordinance § 9.36.
140), we suggest it is important to determine as soon
as possible what scope of work the Commission finds to
be suitable for this City-owned Landmark on City-owned
property.

The City Council has expressed an intention to pursue
demolition/removal of Chain Reaction if the necessary
funds have not been raised by February 1, 2014. This
would include “applying to the Landmarks Commission for
a certificate of appropriateness and ensuring compliance
with CEQA.”

The Conrad family and assembled experts who are assist-
ing the Conrad family continue to believe that the
“repair” estimates provided by the City’s Community and
Cultural Resources Department are excessive and further
believe that the “rebuilding” approach is contrary to
and unsupported by the applicable Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring &
Reconstructing Historic Buildings.

BACKGROUND

Chain Reaction is a public art sculpture designed by
Pulitzer Prize winning political satirist Paul Conrad.
Chain Reaction was a gift of public art donated to the
City in 1991. The anonymous donor paid $250,000 for
the art piece. Mr. Conrad’s written statement to the
City Council explaining his sculpture is enclosed. Mr.
Conrad died in 2010 at the age of 86.

The plaque at the base of Chain Reaction reads:

PAUL CONRAD
Chain Reaction, 1991
Copper chain link and stainless steel
Collection of the City of Santa Monica. A donation from
an anonymous donor. A project of the Santa Monica Arts
Commission.

A second plaque reads:CHAIN REACTION
This is a statement of peace. May it never become an epitaph.
Paul Conrad

On October 9, 1990, the City Council voted to accept
Chain Reaction as a gift of public art and authorized
its installation in the Civic Center. On March 18,
1991, a public art agreement was entered into between
the City of Santa Monica and Conrad Projects, Inc.
On that same date, a Payment Agreement was executed
between the Santa Monica Arts Foundation and Conrad
Projects, Inc. for the total sum of $250,000, which was
to be paid in four installments of varying amounts.

On July 9, 2012, the Landmarks Commission designated
Paul Conrad’s public sculpture Chain Reaction as a City
Landmark. (12LM-005.) Chain Reaction meets five of
the six criteria for designation as a City Landmark

(i.e., political history of the City, artistic object
of noteworthy interest, association with historic per=
sonage, significant example of notable artist, and
prominent location).

On November 12, 2012, the Landmarks Commission desig-
nated the triangular area in the Civic Center where the
sculpture is located to be the Landmark Parcel.

Meanwhile, apparently during the summer of 2011, the
City’s Building Official observed members of the public
climbing on Chain Reaction and became concerned, leading
to an inquiry into its safety.

On February 1, 2012, having received only preliminary
and inconclusive reports from various testing services
and very preliminary estimates of potential maintenance
and repair costs, the Public Arts Committee adopted mo-
tions to:

“Deaccession the work in accordance with the City’s
Deaccessioning Policy and based on staff recommendation
with the understanding that a broad documentation plan
be developed and implemented [with]

“allowance of a six month window for community fund-
raising in which no city resources are expended [and]

“at the end of six months the work will be deaccessioned
if it has not been financed in full.”

At that same meeting and based on the same limited in-
formation, the Arts Commission purported to “accept the
Public Art Committee’s recommendation to deaccession the
work while allowing for a six month window for commu-
nity fundraising [provided] that within the six months,
the first task of fundraising is to proceed with the
additional testing.”

On March 12, 2012, the City Council adopted a motion
that “if private fundraising for repair and restoration
is not successful” then City Staff should return to
City Council on November 15, 2012, with a recommenda-
tion regarding “funding, restoration and/or de-acquisi-
tioning” of Chain Reaction after City Staff completes
“all necessary testing.”

The City’s experts did not complete their testing and
evaluation of Chain Reaction until at least August 20,
2012. And the City did not release the last of those
testing reports until September 11, 2012. Moreover,
the City did not provide its corresponding estimate
of the repair costs until September 13, 2012. This
five-month lag after the City Council hearing delayed
initial private fundraising efforts. And despite this
significant time lag, it still is not clear whether all
of the City’s intended testing was actually completed,
based on the on-going uncertainty about specifying the
repairs that would be most appropriate.

For about a year now, Chain Reaction has remained en-
circled with temporary chain link fencing (which may or
may not assist with fundraising, depending on the
audience). And Chain Reaction has undergone invasive
testing by the City’s experts, which still has not yet
een repaired. Perhaps the current appearance of Chain
Reaction as an abandoned art work makes it look worse
than it is.

To date, private fundraising efforts have collected
approximately $15,000 in donations for Chain Reaction’s
repair. Additional fundraising events are scheduled for
the summer. Furthermore, a professional grant writer
(Abby Arnold) has volunteered her services for this
cause.

DESPITE ITS PROTESTS TO THE CONTRARY, THE CITY HAS PLAN
CHECK, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, AND AS-BUILT DRAWINGS FOR
CHAIN REACTION

City Staff has steadfastly maintained the position that
“no records were found to confirm that the sculpture
received review from the City’s Building and Safety
Division or that a building permit was issued. And
City Staff has further maintained that, “Without a
valid permit on file, it could not be confirmed that
inspection of critical elements of the sculpture occurred.”

On December 17, 2012, our law firm submitted a Public
Records Act request to the City requesting background
documents related to Chain Reaction. The City had 10
days under State law to respond (i.e., until December
27, 2012). On Friday, January 18, 2013, the City
mailed to me various documents in response to my Public
Records Act request. I received those materials in
the mail the day after our last City Council hearing
on January 22, 2013. Those materials I belatedly
received from the City included four sheets of draw-
ings for Chain Reaction.

The drawings had been filed with the City in July
1991 by Peter Carlson Enterprises, the fabricator of
Chain Reaction. They bear the stamp and signature
of Arthur R. Harvey, a registered structural engineer
(License # 1060). Sheet 1 is titled, “Site Plan,”
and it includes the revision date of July 26, 1991,
with the following description: “As-Built Conditions
& Plan Chk. Correct.,” and also includes the following
note: “After conducting an as-built survey of the site,
there does not appear to be any physical conflict with
utilities and the proposed sculpture.”

The second sheet is titled, “Section & Details,” and
again bears the licensed structural engineer’s signature
and professional stamp and the same revision date of July
26, 1991, and the description, “plan check correct.”

The third sheet is entitled, “Engineering Calc’s,” and
also bears the licensed structural engineer’s signature
and professional stamp and is dated June 1991.

The fourth and final sheet is entitled, “Details,” and
also bears the licensed structural engineer’s signature
and professional stamp and the same revision date of July
26, 1991, and again the description, “plan check correct.”
It sets forth “general notes” including, “All design and
construction shall conform to the 1988 UBC [Uniform Build-
ing Code]” and it specifies the seismic, wind and live
loads. It further specifies, “Contractor shall provide
all necessary bracing for alignment and stability of the
structure.” As to the concrete and steel elements, it
states that the “concrete shall have the following minimum
ultimate compressive strength at 28 days: Foundations
2,000 PSI.” It specifies that the “reinforcing steel shall
conform to ASTM [American Society for Testing and Materials]
A-615 and shall be Grade 60 or 40.” It further specifies
that “all structural steel plates shall conform to ASTM A
36” and “structural steel tubing shall conform to ASTM A
500 Grade B” and “structural steel pipe shall conform to
ASTM A 501 or ASTM A 53 Type E, or S Grade B” and “threaded
rods shall conform to ASTM A-307 or ASTM A-36” and “all
steel shall be fabricated and erected in accordance with
AISC [American Institute of Steel Construction] specifica-
tions” and “after fabrication all steel shall be cleaned
and given one coat of rust-inhibiting epoxy coating” and
“all welding shall be performed by qualified welders” and
“all shop welding shall be performed in an approved shop”
and “provide separation material between all dissimilar
metals as required to prevent electrolytic action.” As
to the foundation, it specifies that the “foundation de-
sign is based on a design soil pressure of 1,000 psf bear-
ing 12 inches into approved soil” and “the foundations
shall be inspected just prior to pouring concrete to
insure that they are on satisfactory soil and are clean
and free of loose soil.” This sheet also depicts the
“cooper attachment” and “copper skin” (i.e., not brass).

Additionally, the City files include a “foundation plan”
and four pages of engineering calculations entitled,
“Statue Framework,” prepared by HRC Consultants Inc.
Architects & Engineers. The Statue Framework calcula-
tions bear the signature and professional structural
engineer stamp of Richard A. Ranous (License # 2486).

There simply is no basis for the City Building Official’s
on-going concern about the original fabrication of this
sculpture. These plans came from the City’s files, so
the City was fully aware of the sculpture’s design at the
time of its construction, the City performed standard plan
check review of those drawings, a licensed structural
engineer signed off on the sculpture’s final design, and
despite its assertions to the contrary, the City received
and still possesses the final “as-built” drawings.

THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION SHOULD PROVIDE IMMEDIATE GUIDANCE
ON THE SCOPE OF REPAIRS TO CHAIN REACTION BECAUSE IT IS
AN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AND CITY-OWNED LANDMARK

The Landmarks Commission has designated Chain Reaction as
a City Landmark. As a result of that designation, any
repairs to Chain Reaction must be processed through a
Certificate of Appropriateness.

Staff for the City’s Community and Cultural Services has
developed a budget for “rebuilding” Chain Reaction.
Rebuilding a designated landmark is disfavored by the
Landmarks Commission and is a measure of last resort per
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Cultural
Affairs Division is not familiar with the Certificate of
Appropriateness process, nor The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards, nor the criteria for issuance of such a Certifi-
cate of Appropriateness.

Community fundraising efforts need an accurate target budget.
We steadfastly maintain that the Cultural Affairs budget of
nearly $500,000 contemplates work to the sculpture that the
Landmarks Commission would never approve because it is un-
necessary, is not consistent with The Secretary of the Inter-
ior’s Standards, and would not reflect the proper treatment of
historic resources. It also should be noted that this amount
of re-construction of the sculpture is not warranted by any
of the testing and analysis done by City-contracted structural
engineers.

It is important for the Commission to provide immediate guid-
ance on this topic to the Chain Reaction supporters in the
community, to potential donors, to our volunteer grant writer,
to the City Staff and to the City Council.

A. Outdoor Sculptures Such As Chain Reaction Do Require Main-
tenance.

This landmark sculpture is more than 20 years old. The need
for repair and maintenance of this outdoor public art is not
at all unusual, and this sculpture has actually weathered this
time span quite well.

The National Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Pro-
perty and the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of
American Art have jointly sponsored an organization called
Save Outdoor Sculpture! (“SOS!”) to advocate for outdoor
sculptures.

Particularly given the City’s lack of attention to Chain
Reaction’s maintenance needs while it was a component of
the City’s public art collection, it is not surprising or
unusual that Chain Reaction needs repairs after more than
20 years in the outdoors. As SOS! notes:

“It is no small thing to outwit time. Help us save outdoor
sculpture for the next century–and the next.”

B. The City Has Completed Its Inspections Of The Sculpture;
The Identified Repairs Are Not Extraordinary.

The City’s expert, structural engineer Melvyn Green, has
prepared a report dated August 2012. Mr. Green’s report
(“Green Report”) evaluates the structural condition of
Chain Reaction and identifies certain repairs that should
be performed.

Contrary to the City’s gloomy forecasts, Mr. Green does
not believe that major reconstruction is needed nor
recommended:

“No major reconstruction is recommended.”

According to Mr. Green, even if no action is taken, the
“life expectancy” of Chain Reaction is estimated to be
another 10 years.

It is Mr. Green’s professional opinion that the sculpture
is not an imminent hazard, nor should it be considered
dangerous:

“Safety to persons around the sculpture is probably the
critical consideration. In reviewing the basic calculations,
test data, and reports, I am of the opinion that the sculp-
ture is not an imminent hazard nor should it be considered
dangerous.”

And Mr. Green has determined that Chain Reaction meets
current building code standards:

“We analyzed the structure under current building code loads
and found that it remains compliant with current standards.”

Based on his professional evaluation, Mr. Green recommends
that four basic tasks be performed to “extend the life of
the structure another 20 or more years.” The four tasks are:

· “Inspect top of mushroom and repair any leaks.”

· “Repaint the fiberglass to reduce the ultra violet
effects and deterioration.”

· “Make sure all chains are supported with appropriate
fasteners.”

· “Remove inappropriate connectors like the steel
wires.”

In a memorandum to the City Manager, the City’s Building
Officer
has acknowledged the City’s structural engineering consul-
tant’s conclusion “that the sculpture is not an imminent
hazard nor should it be considered dangerous.” The Build-
ing Officer has further acknowledged that installing “a
protective barrier around the sculpture will prevent peo-
ple from easily accessing the work.” Thus, at this point,
the concerns are limited to “impacts from environmental
condiions including but not limited to moisture, rain,
ultra-violet rays, salt laden air, wind and seismic effects.”

Additionally, because the invasive testing ordered by the
City caused damage to the sculpture that has not yet been
repaired, and has allowed rain and the chemicals in air
pollution to penetrate deeply into this work of art, the
damage caused by the City needs to be promptly repaired.

Finally, Mr. Green recommends against relocation of Chain
Reaction:

“Relocation appears to be difficult.”

We agree. Chain Reaction is firmly embedded in a concrete
base at this location. In addition to the public policy
reasons not to move it (see Landmarks Finding #6), there are
no good physical reasons to attempt to place the sculpture
in a different location.

Moreover, because Chain Reaction is an official City Land-
mark, the City as the owner has a legal duty under its own
Municipal Code to maintain and repair the sculpture (absent
a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic
hardship):

“9.36.190 Maintenance and repair.

“Every owner, or person in charge, of a Landmark shall
have the duty of keeping in good repair all of the exterior
features of such Landmark . . . and all interior features
thereof which, if not so maintained, may cause or tend
to cause the exterior features of such Landmark . . . to
deteriorate, decay, or become damaged, or otherwise to fall
into a state of disrepair. All designated buildings or
structures shall be preserved against such decay and be
kept free from structural defects through the prompt repair
of any of the following:

“(a) Façades which may fall and
injure members of the public or property.

“(b) Deteriorated or inadequate
foundation, defective or deteriorated flooring or floor
supports, deteriorated walls or other vertical structural
supports.

“(c) Members of ceilings, roofs,
ceiling and roof supports or other horizontal members which
age, split or buckle due to defective material or deteriora-
tion.

“(d) Deteriorated or ineffective
waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations or
floors, including broken windows or doors.

“(e) Defective or insufficient
weather protection for exterior wall covering, including
lack of paint or weathering due to lack of paint or other
protective covering.

“(f) Any fault or defect in the
building which renders it not properly watertight or
structurally unsafe.

“This Section 9.36.190 of this Chapter shall be in addition
to any and all other provisions of law requiring such Landmark . . .
to be kept in good repair.”

C. The City’s Repair Estimates Are Overblown Because The
Scope Of Repairs Identified By The City Is Unnecessary And
Would Be Inappropriate.

Dave Conrad has provided the Green Report to an experienced
and respected art conservator. He is Steve Colton. His
clients have included the Hearst Monument, the Norton Simon
Museum, the Huntington Art Museum, the California Museum of
Science and Industry, and others. He was the head of the
Objects Conservation Section and Objects Conservator for the
Conservation Center of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art
for twelve years. And he worked as a project conservator
for the City’s cost estimator (Carlson & Co.) for two years.

Mr. Colton finds that the overall condition of Chain Reaction
is good to very good, “given the apparent and reported lack
of proper regular maintenance.” He goes on to elaborate:

“The surfaces have suffered from normal outdoor weathering
and human interaction expected from this type of open-site
with no apparent control to restrict access.”

Mr. Colton will be attending the hearing on Monday night to
explain his findings and recommendations to the Commission.

Mr. Colton estimates that the repairs of Chain Reaction as
recommended by Mr. Green can be accomplished for approxi-
mately $80,000 to 95,000.

Kenneth L. Kutcher
Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP
1250 6th Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
t: (310) 451-3669

More than 300 residents attended a community meeting
on Santa Monica’s Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) and
the majority of them expressed extreme displeasure
with what is currently being proposed.

The city has been working on the plan since 2011.
Francie Stefan, the planning manager for the project,
emphasized at the beginning of her presentation on
May 6 that “this is a work in progress; no decisions
have been made.” The purpose of the meeting was for
the city’s planning department to provide an update
on the DSP and to get community input on what has
been done so far.

The key goals of the plan according to Stefan are to
“focus investment, reduce new vehicle trips, support
economic health, maximize livability and sustainabi
lity, and connect the Downtown to the Civic Center
and the Beach.” The DSP will also analyze options
for preserving character of the city’s historic
buildings, the character of its streets and spaces,
circulation and parking, pedestrian orientation, a
diversity of uses, and building heights.

Also under study is analyzing whether the Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) concept of community
benefits can be applied Downtown, a tiering system
for downtown heights can be devised, along with po-
tential floor area ratios (FARS). The LUCE was
adopted in 2010.

Staff is also analyzing potential uses for the
eight opportunity sites identified in the LUCE.So
far no FAR or height standards have been proposed
for these sites, and potential requirements could
include “extraordinary site-specific community bene-
fits.”

A 3D analysis tool is being developed to help city
planners and the community envision different Down-
town scenarios.

Finally, Stefan noted that a “program EIR will be
prepared for the Draft Downtown Specific Plan prior
to any final decisions.” The EIR will include all
the California Environmental Quality Analysis (CEQA)
requirements but will also include “test scenarios
for height and density on the opportunity sites.”

After Stefan’s presentation, the residents gave their
input. Neighborhood coalition member Laurence Eubank’s
comments were typical of the many of the residents’
response to the plan. He stated, “residents have ne-
ver been considered stakeholders in this process and
the results show it. While benefits of anticipated eco-
nomic activity can be debated, we believe the overall
effect on Santa Monica residents is categorically
negative, bringing an deleterious acceleration of our
most vexing concerns, namely, traffic, congestion,
parking.” He also, like others, expressed concern about
the opportunity sites by noting, “we consider ‘Oppor-
tunity Sites’ to be vehicles – ‘opportunities’ – for
unrestricted scale, height and density, and ‘community
benefits’ as negotiating chits that allow developers
economic advantages for offering residents, in the Mira-
mar example, the benefit of looking at a tree that has
stood for 180 years.”

Also expressing concerns about the Miramar redevel-
opment was Lauren Paull of Latham & Watkins, who repre-
sents the Second Street Corporation, the owner of The
Huntley Hotel. She stated, “we have concerns about the
identification of the Miramar site as a potential oppor-
tunity site. We want to ensure that any opportunity
site designation does not provide increased development
rights that conflict with the LUCE’s identification of
the Miramar site as a transition site to adjacent resi-
dential neighborhoods. Given the significance of the
Miramar development project and its potential impacts
to Downtown and the City, we believe the maximum poten-
tial development envelope for the site should be estab-
lished as part of the Downtown Specific Plan process
and not during the Development Agreement process.
The maximum potential development envelope must be
identified in the Specific Plan so that all enviro-
nmental impacts are analyzed as part of the Specific
Plan’s ongoing environmental review process.”

The Frank Gehry hotel and museum project also drew fire.
Elizabeth Vandenberg called the project “condos with a
Gehry jacket.” She also stated that if the building
height limits for Downtown are increased this “will
represent the unraveling of Santa Monica.”

To former Mayor Michael Feinstein. City approval of the
proposal for the Miramar and Gehry’s hotel “will open
the door to tall buildings in Downtown.” In addition,
the selling price for the condos that are proposed as
part of Gehry’s project is projected to be between
$3-$5 million which means his project will be selling
skylines and views to the upper 1 percent. Therefore,
we need “an economic class analysis of whom we are sell-
ing our views to.”

In a survey taken by one of the city’s neighborhood
groups, residents responded they “don’t want tall build-
ings in a beach town they want the heights we have now,”
noted Carol Landsberg.

The co-chair of Santa Monicans for a Livable City,
Diana Gordon pointed out that the plan is further along
than we heard from planning. The city has already
paid $333,000 to a consultant. “The residents were
excluded from the process.” The LUCE requires a Down-
town Specific Plan. The city should not be entering
into Development Agreements (DA) with developers without
a Downtown Specific Plan. A DA allegedly gives the City
community benefits from a developer in return for his
being allowed to go beyond the Cty’s zoning standards.

Lastly, “the jobs/housing balance is missing from the
DSP,” Valerie Griffin noted. There needs to be afford-
able retail and the “whole realm of needs within walk-
ing distance” of the housing units being proposed for
the Downtown.

Rubin went on to say that “L.A. Mayoral candidate
Eric Garcetti has voted in favor of modernizing
LAX without the unnecessary movement of the north
-side runway. Garcetti’s vote puts him in the camp
of longtime LAX activists who want essential up-
grades to LAX without unnecessary encroachments into
and on the airport’s impacted communities earning
the endorsement of the Alliance for a Regional Solu-
tion to Airport Congestion (ARSAC) and District 11
Council member-elect Mike Bonin. Garcetti also has
the endorsement of the Sierra Club among his many
other endorsements.

“When President of the L.A. City Council, Garcetti
had been a supporter of the efforts by Councilman
Bill Rosendahl and CRAAP to address the impacts of
Santa Monica Airport (SMO) on the surrounding Los
Angeles communities of Venice, Mar Vista, and West
Los Angeles. Eric’s sensitivity and willingness to
include community input reminds me of Bill Rosen-
dahl With Eric as mayor and with Mike Bonin on the
Council,efforts to address the critical health and
safety issues surrounding SMO will strengthen.”

Mike Bonin was Rosendahl’s longtime assistant, and,
with his endorsement, he ran to replace him when
Rosendahl, who is recovering from cancer chose not
to run for re-election.

E-mail: jetairpollution@earthlink.net , Website:
jetairpollution.com

One of the biggest critics of Michael Dell’s plan to
take the company he founded private has launched a
fresh challenge to that $24.4-billion bid and says
the slumping PC maker needs new leadership.

Billionaire investor Carl Icahn has teamed up with
Dell’s largest independent shareholder, Southeastern
Asset Management, to pitch a deal that would let Dell
shareholders keep their stake in the company and give
them either $12 per share in cash or additional shares.
Icahn and Southeastern say this alternative, which
would keep the company publicly traded, gives share-
holders a stake in future company gains, according to
a letter sent Thursday to Dell’s board.

An investment group led by Michael Dell offered earlier
this year to pay $13.65 per share in a deal that would
take the Round Rock, Texas, company private. But Icahn
said Friday during a CNBC interview that price amounted
to a giveaway.

“It’s really a travesty,” he said. “It’s almost like
something out of ‘Saturday Night Live.’ ”

Icahn and Southeastern heaped more criticism on Dell’s
offer in the letter. They accused the Dell board of
insulting shareholders’ intelligence by claiming to be
focused on shareholders’ best interests while accept-
ing Dell’s offer to buy the company for “far below
what we consider its value to be.”

“You not only sanctioned Michael Dell’s offer, which
amazingly allows him to purchase the company from
shareholders with their own money but, to add insult
to injury, you have agreed to give Mr. Dell a breakup
fee of up to $450 million,” the letter states.

A special committee of Dell Inc.’s board said in a
separate statement that it is carefully reviewing
the proposal from Icahn and Southeastern “to assess
the potential risks and rewards to the public share-
holders.”

Icahn and Southeastern say that they would pay for
their offer with existing cash from the company and
about $5.2 billion in debt, which would be less than
Michael Dell’s plan requires.

Company documents outlining Dell’s buyout proposal
state that it would involve a $2-billion loan from
Microsoft Corp. and up to $13.75 billion in other
debt from lenders.

Southeastern and Icahn said they own about 13% of
the company’s outstanding shares. They want the Dell
board to put their proposal before shareholders
instead of proceeding with Dell’s buyout offer.

If the board declines, they want the vote on Michael
Dell’s buyout combined with the company’s annual
meeting to elect new directors. Then they’ll chal-
lenge Dell’s board with their own director nominees.

If Dell puts Michael Dell’s buyout proposal up for a
shareholder vote, Icahn and Southeastern promise to
work “assiduously” to convince the other shareholders
to reject the bid, which he made with the investment
firm Silver Lake.

“This company has suffered long enough from very wrong-
headed decisions made by the board and its management,”
the letter states. “Do not make another by putting the
company through an unnecessary debilitating proxy fight.”

“Allow the shareholders to decide for themselves which
offer they choose,” Icahn and Southeastern wrote.

Dell Inc. plans to hold a special meeting to vote on
Michael Dell’s buyout proposal sometime in its current
quarter, which ends Aug. 2. It then expects to close
the deal in the next quarter. The company usually holds
its annual meeting, where shareholders vote on directors,
among other items, in the summer.

Icahn said that if his board candidates are elected, he
guarantees Michael Dell will no longer run the company.
“It’s amazing what can be done once you do change the
leadership,” he said.

Dell shares rose 13 cents, or 1.0%, to $13.45.