THE BATTLE FOR THE AIRPORT HEATS UP

There are two unique facts about the battle of initiatives that’s cur-
rently raging in Santa Monica.

First, it’s the largest influx of out-of-state money ever invested in
a political contest in Santa Monica history, and our town is 139 years
old.

It’s at $872,000 now, and, given the rate at which it’s piling up, it
could hit a million dollars by Tuesday, November 4, election day.

Second, this is not the sort of political battle Santa Monica wants to
engage in. Our opponents, and they ARE opponents, want to take control
of Santa Monica Airport. Nearly all of them live far from here and their
interests are antithetical to our interests.

That’s bad. What’s worse, much worse, they insist they’re our friends,
on our side, when, in fact, they’re the villains in this costly game.

Put succinctly, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s (AOPA) mea-
sure D, is designed to take control of the Santa Monica Airport and force
the city to continue operating it for their benefit.

It would require voters to pass another ballot measure or measures in
order to change aviation land uses to non-aviation use, including partial
or total closure of the runway. It seems to be designed to maintain the
status quo and to make it extremely difficult for the City to manage the
airport or mitigate noise, air pollution or safety impacts on thousands
of residents in Los Angeles and Santa Monica. And, if the airport were
to close, Measure D would do nothing to prevent development, but would
prevent us from ending dangerous Leaded Avgas sales at Santa Monica
Airport”

In comparison, CLCSMAL (Committee for Local Control of Santa Monica Air-
port Land) has thus far raised $101,275, all but 2 percent donated by
residents. (as of October 17, 2014)

The sponsoring committee for measure D is named “Santa Monicans for Open
and Honest Development Decisions,” but D is not about development. Here’s
the text:

AOPA’s initiative D

(a) Voter approval shall be required before any City decision becomes eff
ective that changes the use of land currently used for the Santa Monica
Municipal Airport and related aviation services to non-aviation purposes,
or that closes or partially closes Santa Monica Municipal Airport. The
term “Voter approval” means a majority of the voters of the City voting
“yes” on a ballot measure approving such a change at a general municipal
election. (b) Unless the voters have approved the closure of the airport
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, and such decision has become
effective, the City shall continue to operate the Santa Monica Municipal
Airport in a manner that supports its aviation purposes, and shall not
impose additional restrictions on providers of aviation support services
to tenants and airport users that inhibit the sale of fuel or the full
use of aviation facilities.”

The City of Santa Monica’s counter- measure LC s IS about development.

The City’s initiative LC

“If all or part of the Airport is permanently closed to aviation use, no
new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have app-
roved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. How-
ever, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the
following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation
use: the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreation-
al facilities; and the maintenance of existing cultural, arts and educat-
ion uses.”

When the airfield was built nearly a century ago, it was small and simple,
as were the few planes that used it. In fact, a second airfield at Wilshire
and 26th was far busier. Both Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart are
said to have flown in there.

In those days, Clover Field (named for a young Santa Monica flyer who was
killed in World War I) was isolated, virtually alone in what was then
countryside. But the Air Age was underway. Santa Monica’s population grew,
and the Santa Monica Airport grew, too.

An attractive new neighborhood, Sunset Park, rose around the airport. The
Jet Age was underway. Private jets were the new status symbol. Today, jets
come and go all day. Their noise is unbearable. Jet fuels contain pollut-
ants that drop on the neighborhood below. Flight school students fly patt-
erns over the houses all day. In 1982, the newly elected SMRRs made two pro-
mises: to create a farmers’ market and close the airport. Farmers’ markets
flourish today, but the airport is still in business, thanks to the FAA,
which, according to its charter, has absolute control of the sky. Accidents
are more frequent, with planes crashing into houses. The noise is unbear-
able, and pollution proliferates.

Santa Monica’s dedicated Airport Commission has worked for years to find
ways to eliminate the jets and flight schools. The City has tried to close
the airport, but when the federal government returned control of the airport
to the city after World War II, the 1948 Instrument of Transfer included a “perpetuity” clause.

When the City attempted to ban jets in the 1970s, it was sued, lost the suit,
and signed the infamous 1984 Agreement with the FAA, which requires the
city to operate the airport until that agreement ends on July 1, 2015.

Meanwhile, the Airport Commission found that a 35-acre parcel (which includes
the western 2,000 ft of the runway) was returned in a 1949 Quit Claim, which
does not include a perpetuity clause. So the Airport Commission has advised
the City to do the following:

1. Close the 35 acres, which includes 2,000 feet of runway, to aviation uses. Currently too short for jet landings by FAA standards, the closure would make
the runway much shorter.

2. Stop selling jet fuel, which several local airports in the Los Angeles bas-
in have already done.

3. Refuse to renew leases to aviation-related businesses when their leases
expire in 2015.

Those three steps would eliminate the jets and the flight schools and restore
the serenity and safety of the nearby neighborhoods.

The night the plan was reviewed by the City Council, speakers included resi-
dents and members of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, (AOPA) the
industry lobbying group from Washington, DC, which claimed that this was a
scam on the part of the City and developers to replace the airport with a large development. According to them, the airport generated millions of dollars ann-
ually for the City, and its loss would seriously impact Santa Monica taxpayers
of the city. In fact, according to the City Manager, airport income matches that
of a midsized shopping mall.

The speakers went on to say if the City approved these three changes, the AOPA
would move to stop them.

The City Council directed staff to bring them options for partially or totally closing the airport by the end of this year.

The next day, the AOPA’s lobbyists filed its intent to qualify an initiative
to prevent ANY changes at the airport. They paid signature gatherers as much
as $20 a signature to qualify the initiative for the ballot. Measure D would change the City Charter to prohibit any changes to the Airport unless they were approved by the voters.

If D, which must stand for “draconian,” passes, the City Council would have to
renew leases to the businesses that are causing the current problems. Further,
it could not raise rents, but would be forced to continue to lease at sub-market rates, causing an annual budget deficit. In addition, the City could not stop
selling jet fuel or leaded fuel for the prop planes.

In other words, the City and its residents could do nothing to ameliorate the increasingly dangerous hazards that now afflicted them and their West L.A. neigh-
bors.

The Council ordered staff to prepare a competing initiative: LC (local control).

The propaganda distributed by “Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions” claims our City Council is lying to us and is planning to build a
huge Playa Vista-style development on the airport land. Of course, Measure LC actually prevents any such development, which is why the normally polite League
of Women Voters refers Measure D as “D for Deception.”

There are also some serious questions about the D people’s definition of Voter Approval. The initiative says, “Voter approval means a majority of the voters
of the City voting ‘yes on the ballot measure approving a change in a general municipal election.” There are about 62,000 registered voters in Santa Monica.
A majority would be 31,001. In Santa Monica’s 139 years, only one election
drew that many votes, and they didn’t all vote the same way. The operative phrase
in D is “of the City.” “Voter approval” generally means a majority of the
voters who voted on the issue. If that definition holds, no change will ever
be occur, because as the number of registered voters grows, so does this requirement. Also, this stipulates that such a vote must be on a general muni-
cipal election – and they only occur every two years.

The D people’s latest ploy is to invite their nationwide association of pilots
to fly into Santa Monica on election day, go to the polls and try to convince undecided voters to vote their way.

At bottom, Measure D is a thoroughly delusional effort by the aviation indust-
ry to take control of the Santa Monica Airport and force the City to run it to benefit the industry – at the expense of Santa Monica, its residents, its
health and safety, and, indeed, its future.

Here’s contact information: Committee For Local Control of Santa Monica Airport
Lands (yes on LC, no on D).

If you’d like to help defeat Measure D or want further information, the Committee
for Local Control of Santa Monica Airport Lands (yes on LC, no on D) web site can
be accessed at http://itsourland.org. or email at info@clcsmal.org

=

“YES ON LC” BIKE RIDE, SATURDAY AFTERNOON, 2 PM

Bikes will gather in front of City Hall, 1685 Main Street.Meet at 2
PM. Ride out 2:30 PM.

Decorate your bike with YES on LC, NO on D signs, bring horns, more
cowbells and of course your bicycle and a helmet!

Let’s show everyone that bicycles and people are MORE important than
jets and money!

Bicyclists are gathering together to promote a healthy and sustainable
means of transportation less dependent of cars and jets and more on
“people power”

This ride is co-sponsored by Santa Monica Spoke and takes place after
the morning’s Kidical Mass ride. Spend the day riding with us.

BREAKING NEWS! RESIDOCRACY HOLDS RALLY TONIGHT AT 7 PM

BREAKING NEWS: RESIDOCRACY HOLDS RALLY TONIGHT

Residocracy members have spoken! You picked the three Council candidates
who represent the residents and are leading the fight to stop overdeve-
lopment of our city and protect our quality of life:

Phil Brock – Kevin McKeown – Sue Himmelrich are our candidates.

Now we must give them the support they need to be elected.

This is a grassroots effort. Your participation is vital. Only by work-
ing together as residents can we overcome the developer cash that has
bought the majority of our City Council.

Residocracy will host a special rally tonight. There are only 12 days
left. The election is Tuesday, November 4. We must hit the streets now.

Join us at our inaugural rally at 7p.m. tonight! Santa Monica Library,
Martin Luther King Auditorium. 601 Santa Monica Boulevard.

Working together we stopped the massive Hines development that would
have added 7,000 new daily car trips to our already jammed streets. Now
it’s time to work together to insure that we have a City Council that
puts residents first and protects and preserves our priceless beach
town character.

Bring your family, friends, and neighbors tonight, and participate in
our campaign to take our town back. .

“GOOD NEWS ROAD” ARRIVES AT LORA SCHLESINGER GALLERY

“Good News Road” by Richard Sedivy is a finely crafted combination of paint, construction and assemblage on wood panels. The imagery depicts architectural structures that investigate our relationship to “home” and the values and be-
liefs that are materialized through them. The exhibition opens Saturday Octo-
ber 25, 2014 and runs through November 29, 2014.

Richard Sedivy was born and raised in Chicago, a city with a distinctive architectural style. His experience traveling from Chicago, to Tennesse and California exposed him to the myriad of rural buildings and dwellings along
the way. He developed a connection to houses, shacks, work sheds and simple dwellings. Each structure represented work ethic, and the remains of a heart-
land of work.

Sedivy’s homes, are containers of human history. They become metaphors for
lives lived, work, hope, dreams dreamt and hardships endured. The carefully
crafted structures are constructed with fragments of wood laboriously painted
to have character, a sense of history, solidity, permanence and impermanence.
The paintings are an homage to monuments of modest intention built to last,
but the monuments inevitably fade and change with time. Sedivy’s paintings
capture and immortalize these structures in an ever changing world.

Sedivy resides in Southern California. He received his M.F.A. from Bradley University, Illinois, but credits his real education in traditional painting
to working as a scenic painter for CBS. His visual influences range from
17th -Century Flemish art to 20th-Century Bauhaus formalism. This is his sixth
solo exhibition with the gallery.

Lora Schlesinger East Gallery presents Iva Hladis’ Vznik vs Zánik: An Insight
on Matters that Matter. Vznik vs Zánik features new assemblages by Iva Hladis,
a devout environmentalist, uses found motherboards in opposition to botanicals, insects, and animal parts to address environmental issues. Each piece is cons-
tructed carefully with beads, hand-picked leaves and flowers carefully preserv-
ed and arranged on to a circuit card, resembling a digitized landscape. The
sides are carefully finished with hand-painted text and calligraphic elements
often warning of the perils of human behavior and our relationship to the
world.

Iva Hladis grew up in Zlín, Czech Republic. Zlín is nicknamed Green City. Surr-
ounded by nature, she developed a strong appreciation for all living things.
Iva moved to Los Angeles in 1986. She received a degree in physics and chemis-
try in 1984 from Středni prumyslová skola kozeluzská – Zlín, Czech Republic.
In 1989 she studied design, painting and life drawing at West Los Angeles Coll-
ege in Culver City, CA.

OPENING RECEPTION: Saturday, October 25, 2014 5:00 – 8:00 PM
ARTIST TALK WITH RICHARD SEDIVY: Saturday, October 25, 2014 4:30 PM. GALLERY
HOURS: Tuesday – Friday 10:00 – 5:30 p.m., Saturdays 11:00 – 5:30

CELEBRATING THE CAMPAIGN TO REDUCE EVICTIONS IN L.A.

70,000 evictions are filed in Los Angeles County each year. 2200 of
those households are represented by free legal services via legal aid.
99% of the tenants that go to court alone lose their cases and lose
their homes.

In November, 2013, the Eviction Defense Network (EDN) pledged to close
the Access to Justice Gap for the 70,000 tenants that face eviction in
LA County each year by 2024.

In order to be accessible to working families, EDN has increased its
hours to Monday through Thursday 9AM to 9PM, Friday 9AM to 6PM. EDN
staff anticipates that in 2014 EDN will provide counsel, advice and
brief service assistance to approximately 4000 different families and
represent close to 2000 of them.

Join EDN in celebrating its success.

Attend their annual celebration on 10//23/2014 at 5 PM for an evening
of music and dancing under the stars, featuring the rag time music of
the California Feet Warmers.

Heritage Square in Highland Park, 3800 Homer Street, LA 90031

Ticket: $50, Students/Low Income/Nonprofit Staff: $25

Sponsors: Champion for Justice $1000; Leader for Justice $500;
Advocate for Justice $250; Friend $100.

Elena Popp
Executive Director
Eviction Defense Network
1930 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90057
213/385-8112
213/385-8181 (fax)
elenaipopp17@gmail.com

To reach me directly use my cell (310/704-8785). Texting works best.
Please do not give cell or email to potential clients.
Potential clients should simply walk in M-Th 9AM-9PM or Friday 9AM-6PM
(try to arrive at least an hour before closing)
No appointments
No advice over the phone

SIERRA CLUB ENDORSES OSCAR de la TORRE FOR SCHOOL BOARD

The Sierra Club is pleased to announce its endorsement of Oscar de la
Torre for Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education.

The general election vote will determine who fills four seats on the
School Board. Oscar de la Torre, one of the three incumbents seeking re-
election, was the only candidate who received the required 2/3 vote at
the various layers of the Sierra Club endorsement process.

“We are happy to be endorsing a principled champion who is willing to
risk his political career in order to do what is right regarding the
severe health problems related to the PCB contamination at 3 adjacent
Malibu schools,” said Bruce Campbell, a 12-year member of the Sierra
Club Angeles Chapter Political Committee who led the Interview/Endorse-
ment Team for the Santa Monica – Malibu Schoolboard races. “All board
members except Mr.de la Torre go along with SMMUSD’s approach which,
rather than testing and removing the source of the PCBs in the toxic
‘caulking’ (found at Malibu High School at up to 7400 times the legal
limit of 50 parts per million), instead favor a focus on lawyers and
public relations.”

Mr.de la Torre supports comprehensive testing for toxic contaminants
and has proposed temporary classrooms to get people out of the toxic
classrooms which have made so many ill at the Malibu schools.

Oscar has been working on socioeconomic and environmental justice is-
sues for decades — including mobilizing the community to picket with
UFW co-founder Cesar Chavez. He founded a youth and family center to
provide an alternative to gangs in Santa Monica’s Pico neighborhood,
and helped to get a new park near the maintenance yard for the Expo
rail line as “mitigation” for another burden on that community. Mr.
de la Torre, who has served on the SMMUSD board since 2002, also wants
to see environmental justice issues become part of the curriculum in
SMMUSD schools.

David Haake, a physician who is Chair of the West L.A. Group of the
Angeles Chapter, said following the interview session, “Oscar de la
Torre is exactly the kind of candidate that the Sierra Club should be
endorsing.”

The Sierra Club is the nation’s largest and oldest grassroots commun-
ity-based environmental organization. There are 13 regions within the
Sierra Club’s Angeles Chapter which covers Los Angeles and Orange Coun-
ties. Both Santa Monica and Malibu are within the West L.A. Group’s ter-
ritory.

All 7 candidates for the SMMUSD Board of Education received Sierra Club questionnaires, and all but one returned them and were interviewed.
The 4-member interview team unanimously recommended that Oscar de la
Torre be endorsed, and then that recommendation was approved by three
other Sierra Club groupings to garner the formal endorsement.

The Sierra Club urges those who care about the environment, as well as
health and safety,to be sure to vote on or by election day, November 4th.

Besides this announcement of the Sierra Club endorsement of Oscar de la
Torre for Santa Monica – Malibu School Board, the Sierra Club has also
made other endorsements in regards to the Santa Monica ballot.The Sierra
Club supports YES on Measure LC, and NO on Measure D (pertaining to the
Santa Monica Airport).Furthermore, the Sierra Club has endorsed Kevin
McKeown, Richard McKinnon, and Sue Himmelrich for Santa Monica City
Council.

CAN LOBBYIST MONEY BUY CONTROL OF SANTA MONICA LAND?

Voters face a key question in the competing ballot measures dealing with
Santa Monica Airport, a question not actually in the measures. The answer
could set a precedent.“Can lobbyist money essentially buy city-owned land
that the city and its residents don’t want to sell?”

The question arises from the massive amount of money raised by aviation
lobbies and businesses backing Measure D — $872,299 (so far).

That’s more than all other funding for local measures and candidates com-
bined. Why so much? To take control of city-owned airport land and cont-
inue pushing to make SMO a true jetport. The aviation interests are, in
a word, developers.

By contrast, Measure LC (for Local Control) has been funded locally by
residents, and would block high-density development at SMO if aviation
activity were curtailed. That’s why LC has won the endorsements of –
among other organizations – the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters
of Santa Monica, the Residocracy advisory board, Santa Monica Coalition
for a Livable City, Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters and Santa
Monica-Malibu Council of PTAs. Nearly every Council candidate, incumbent
or challenger, is in the Yes on LC (and no on D) camp.

Measure D would block the city from administering its own property. The
city would be barred from raising the rent on its leases to aviation
businesses, which expire next year and have been below market rates for
decades. Even more important, the city could not modify the use of land
now leased by aviation businesses, even to make SMO safer or less pollut-
ing. Any such change would require approval by a majority of city voters,
creating a micro-management nightmare.

By comparison, Measure LC would keep regulation of the airport land in the
hands of its citizen-owners and their elected officials. It would guaran-
tee only low-density uses such as parks, playing fields, recreational areas
and cultural/educational facilities on the land (including those currently
in place) IF aviation activity were reduced or eliminated. The City Council
could not change that; only voters could.

By voting Yes on LC and No on D, voters have a chance NOW to ensure that
their land will remain under their regulatory care, not under that of out-
siders whose money buys scare-tactic ads and glitzy mailers.

FOR MORE INFORMATION go to ItsOurLand.org

=

ARCHITECT QUESTIONS INTEGRITY OF DESIGN AND PROCESS

RON Goldman, FAIA
subject: Millennium East Village

I am objecting to the Planning Director’s D.A. Memorandum of June 25, 2014,
where project revisions are accepted as “minor modifications” instead of
“major modifications.” The Development Agreement of March 19, 2013, section
2.4.3, defines “Major Modification” and includes the following 4 criteria:

2.4.3 a) “Reduction of any setback of the Project, as depicted on the
Project Plans, if by such reduction the applicable setback would be less
than is permitted in the applicable zoning district under the zoning
ordinance in effect on the date such modification is applied for by more
than twenty percent (20%) of the dimension of such setback.”

This project does NOT “continue to be respectful of the Colorado frontage
with stepbacks that are 236% more than the approved development” as the
developers’ attorneys suggest. 63% of the buildable width encroaches 43%
beyond code at the upper levels. And the overall development represents a substantial increase in scale from the neighbors and the public perspective
and is substantially short of the Bergamot Specific Plan requirements for
the Mixed Use Creative District. This design constitutes a major re-int-
erpretation of the previous approved plan and code and fails in “preserv-
ing the sensitive transition from the project to the adjacent neighbor-
hood” as called for in the code.

2.4.3 d) “Any reduction in the number of Affordable Units that are part
of the Rental Housing Units.”

41 Affordable Units were agreed upon in the original approved design, this
number was increased to 51 and agreed upon at the subsequent Rent Control
Board hearing, and only 38 are urrently in the modified D.A.

And Affordable Units are required to be “evenly distributed throughout the
project,” but all are now located in building C at the end of the site.
2.4.3 i) “Any variation in the design, massing or building configura-
tion, including but not limited to, floor area and building height,that
renders such aspects out of substantial compliance with the Project Plans
after ARB approval.”

The massing and building configurations have changed signif-icantly. Build-
ing heights have increased within the setback area on Colorado, with the
37% increase in height looming over and casting winter shadows across the
street.

The 57 foot building height on Colorado facing 1 and 2 story houses subs-
tantially increases the sense of height and scale, irregardless of the
“porosity” of the design. And the height and scale depicted in the street perspective is overwhelming at 40 feet above sidewalk level, and imagine
how much more this would loom over you at street level.

And building B on the New Road has increased 58% in length from 170’ to
400’ and grown from 4 stories to 5!

And the staff report suggests “the design provides skyline variation with
maximum heights pushed toward the middle and gradual reduction on edges”
which is totally unrealized!

2.4.3 j) “Any change that would materially reduce the community bene-
fits as set forth in Section 2.6. 2.6 includes significant project feat-
ures and LUCE community benefits.”

The 5th goal of LUCE Community benefits states “does the project adversely
impact or enhance the current or future open space and community gathering
space?”

Uncovered open space has been reduced by 29% and the resulting width of
courtyards are slot-like, canyon-like spaces with landscape and childrens’
play areas in shadow most, if not all day. The largest of the open court-
yards has 50% of its length measuring to 30-22 feet wide while over 57
feet high. And I don’t know of any definition of open space in any munic-
ipal code that is not open to the sky. And the public outdoor park at the
corner of New Road and Pennsylvania, specifically added by the Planning
Commission is now covered space with the open space moved eeasterly on Pennsylvania and contained within building B.

Of the 5 priority categories of Community benefits in the LUCE, #3 is
“Community Physical Improvements … additional ground level open space,
trees …”

Again, open space, landscape, and sunlight have all been reduced by 29%!

And moreover, emergency access to the large interior courtyard is part-
ially covered, and exceeds distance and code standards.

Ron Goldman FAIA
email to ARB
subject – ARB purpose and scope

ARB Members,

In light of the history and process of the Village Trailer Park/East
Village projects, I would like to remind the ARB of the scope and pur-
pose you serve for the city as stated in the municipal code chapter est-
ablishing the ARB – section 9.32.010.

“The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and
general welfare by establishing such procedures and providing such regu-
lations as are deemed necessary to preserve existing areas of natural
beauty, cultural importance; to assure that buildings, structures, signs
or other developments are in good taste, good design, harmonious with
surrounding developments and in general contribute to the preservation
of Santa Monica’s reputation as a place of beauty, spaciousness and
quality; to prevent the development of structures or uses which are not
of acceptable exterior design or appearance, are of inferior quality or
likely to have a depreciating effect on the local environment or sur-
rounding area by reason of appearance or value: to eliminate conditions,
structures, signs or uses which by reason of their effect tend to degrade
the health, safety or general welfare of the community; and provide a

continuing source of programs and means of improving the City’s overall
appearance.”

Will Santa Monica retain its “reputation as a place of beauty, spaciousness,
and quality” if this massive project is approved? Where is the beauty,
where is the spaciousness, where is the quality? How can one make these
findings?? And no permits may issue unless you make these findings and
approve this design!

“Unless plans, elevations, landscaping and proposed signs for building or
structures or alterations thereto have been approved by the Board or on
appeal by the Commission, no building permit shall be issued for any build-
ing, structure or other development of property or appurtenances thereto,
on any property situated in an established architectural review district,
except that the Board under authority of Section 9.32.070 of this Chapter,
may, by resolution, authorize the building officer or other official to
approve applications for building permits for minor or insignificant devel-
opment of property which would not defeat the purposes and objectives of
this chapter…”(9.32.120).

Ultimate power resides in the Board to reject designs under the criterion
set forth in Section 9.32.140, although it may be rarely exercised after
the City Council has given its blessing to the project:”

9.32.140 Criteria.

“The Board may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the issuance
of a building permit in any matter subject to its jurisdiction after consider-
ation of whether the following criteria are complied with:

a. The plan for the proposed building or structure is expressive
of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa
Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality. [DOES THIS PRO-
JECT MEET THESE CRITERIA?]

b. The proposed building or structure is not of inferior quality
such as to cause the nature of the local neighborhood or environment to mat-
erially depreciate in appearance and value. [QUERY, ARE YOU RIGHT ABOUT THIS
OR WILL THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD INCREASE IN VALUE?]

c. The proposed design of the building or structure is compatible
with developments on land in the general area. [IS A BUILDING THAT AKES AWAY
YOUR SUNLIGHT FROM ACROSS THE STREET COMPATIBLE WITH SINGLR FAMILY DEVELOP-
MENTS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE?]

d. The proposed development is in conformity with the effective
guidelines and standards adopted pursuant to this chapter and all other
applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the build-
ings and structures are involved.

If the Board finds that the above criteria are complied with, the appli-
cation shall be approved Conditions may be imposed when the proposed building
or structure does not comply with the above criteria and shall be such to
bring such building or structure into conformity therewith. If an applica-
tion is disapproved, the Board shall detail in its findings the criteria
which are not complied with or the guidelines which are violated, or both.
Any action taken by the Board in regard to a proposed development shall
include findings, and be reduced to writing, signed by the Chairman, and a
copy thereof shall be given to the applicant, in person, or by United States
mail, upon request.

A decision or order of the Board shall not become effective until the
expiration of ten (10) days after the date upon which a ruling has been
made.

The criteria established herein may be changed, from time to time, by
ordinance, upon request of the Board, or upon motion of the City Council.
(Prior code § 9512; added by Ord. No. 959CCS, adopted 7/9/74; amended by
Ord. No. 1003CCS, adopted 7/8/75).”

You have a duty to fulfill this “purpose” cited above and withhold approval
if the project does not meet your criteria for this neighborhood or for the
community of Santa Monica in general.

“The Zoning Administrator may grant an adjustment from the requirements
of this Chapter to:

(a) Allow modification of parcel coverage regulations by up to five
percent of the total lot area for additions to existing structures;

(b) Allow modification of the number of required parking spaces by
up to one percent of the number of required spaces;

(c) Allow the modification of fence heights by up to one foot;

(d) Allow the modification of side yard setback requirements by up
to six inches, but in no case resulting in a setback of less than four feet;

(e) Allow the modification of building heights by up to six inches
on parcels which have a grade differential of five feet or more, as measured
from either any point on the front parcel line to any point on the rear
parcel line, or from any point on a side parcel line to any point on the
opposing side parcel line;

(f) Allow a garage accessory building to extend up to the rear prop-
erty line of the parcel on which it is located where otherwise prohibited;

(g) Allow a building to retain nonconforming setbacks when substant-
ially remodeled provided all of the following criteria are met:

(1) The nonconformity of the setback(s) and building may not be in-
creased,

(2) At least thirty-five percent of the exterior walls of the build-
ing subject to the adjustment shall remain as defined in Section 9.04.02.030,

(3) There has been no prior addition under this Section;

(h) Allow a building to retain nonconforming setbacks when substant-
ially remodeled provided that the applicant demonstrates that all of the
following criteria are met:

(1) The exterior walls are required to be replaced due to concealed
structural damage caused by dry rot, termites, or other factors,

(2) The structural damage was unforeseeable through reasonable due
diligence prior to the issuance of a building permit for the alteration or
addition,

(3) The structural damage was only discovered during the course of construction,

(4) The structural damage was verified after inspection by the
Building Officer or designee, while the damaged exterior walls are still
in place, and

The criteria established by this subsection (h) shall be in lieu of
the findings otherwise required by Section 9.04.20.34.060. (Prior code
§ 9152.3; added by Ord. No. 1612CCS § 7, adopted 1/14/92; amended by Ord.
No. 1664CCS § 1, adopted 1/26/93; Ord. No. 1826CCS § 2, adopted 11/7/95;
and Ord. No. 2278CCS § 3, 11/25/08)

The Development Agreement recites (page 38, section 6.1) that the Council’s
approval is “subject to” ARB review and approval in accordance with exist-
ing regulations. Please don’t let others usurp your power by telling you
this is not within your purview – because it definitely is! Please take
your position and power accordingly and make your decision based on these
larger issues.

The code allows the Z.A. or planning director to make these changes as
“minor changes.” What we have here goes way beyond that – in other words,
they are major and should be reviewed as such. You are being asked to
correct the planning director’s errors in his saying these are minor changes.
It is his errors and your obligation to correct them and not give your
final approval to these plans.

It is my strong belief that this project will have a depreciating effect
both environmentally and economically on the surrounding residents. And
it is your right and core duty, in addition to merely passing on exterior
colors, textures and landscape to direct this applicant to take the best
elements of both designs and reprocess a project that is truly represent-
ative of Santa Monica’s “beauty, spaciousness, and quality.”

Ron Goldman FAIA
email to ARB
subject: ARB final thoughts

ARB Members,

In addition to the material I previously sent, the point I would add,
from my experience in designing over 10,000 multi-family units for dev-
elopers, is this developer has paid conservatively $600,000 – 750,000
and realistically well over $1 million to quote “modify” this project.

Does this expense seem minor to you when he simply could have deleted
10 of the 15 omitted units and solved your principal concern by break-
ing the long U-shaped A building in two?

Yes, 45% of the units are now single loaded, but the east elevation
of building A remains 360’ long, 20% more than the length of a football
field. The west elevation of building B has grown from 170’ to 400’
as well as matured in height from 4 floors to 5.

And height along Colorado has grown from an adolescent 36’ to a robust
57’, while true open space, open to the sky, has been reduced 29%. And
don’t forget, the primary open space requested by the Planning Commiss-
ion at the intersection of the 2 new public roads unfortunately has been
covered over.

And the 51 affordable units agreed to at the Rent Control Board is now
38! And economic value of the adjacent residential area will likewise
be reduced!

The Planning Director is saying that four large TV screens staring at
you on Colorado, massive buildings defining the perimeters, and dark
canyons in substantially reduced interior courtyards are minor?!.

Is this really what you’re willing to approve? Are city commissions
and departments becoming the unpaid staff of developers? It’s within
your domain to stand up to this challenge.

subject: Millennium East Village

I am objecting to the Planning Director’s D.A. Memorandum of June 25,
2014, where project revisions are accepted as “minor modifications”
instead of “major modifications.” The Development Agreement of March
19, 2013, section 2.4.3, defines “Major Modification” and includes
the following 4 criteria:

2.4.3 a) “Reduction of any setback of the Project, as depicted
on the Project Plans, if by such reduction the applicable setback
would be less than is permitted in the applicable zoning district
under the zoning ordinance in effect on the date such modification
is applied for by more than twenty percent (20%) of the dimension
of such setback.”

This project does NOT “continue to be respectful of
the Colorado frontage with stepbacks that are 236% more than the ap-
proved development” as the developers’ attorneys suggest. 63% of
the buildable width encroaches 43% beyond code at the upper levels.
And the overall development represents a substantial increase in
scale from the neighbors and the public perspective and is substan-
tially short of the Bergamot Specific Plan requirements for the Mixed
Use Creative District. This design constitutes a major re-interpret-
ation of the previous approved plan and code and fails in “preserv-
ing the sensitive transition from the project to the adjacent neigh-
borhood” as called for in the code.

2.4.3 d) “Any reduction in the number of Affordable Units that
are part of the Rental Housing Units.”

41 Affordable Units were agreed upon in the original
approved design, this number was increased to 51 and agreed upon at
the subsequent Rent Control Board hearing, and only 38 are currently
in the modified D.A.

And Affordable Units are required to be “evenly dis-
tributed throughout the project,” but all are now located in build-
ing C at the end of the site.

2.4.3 i) “Any variation in the design, massing or building con-
figuration, including but not limited to, floor area and building
height, that renders such aspects out of substantial compliance with
the Project Plans after ARB approval.”

The massing and building configurations have changed sig-
nificantly. Building heights have increased within the set-
back area on Colorado, with the 37% increase in height looming over and casting winter shadows across the street.

The 57 foot building height on Colorado facing 1 and 2
story houses substantially increases the sense of height and scale,
irregardless of the “porosity” of the design. And the height and scale depicted in the street perspective is overwhelming at 40 feet above
sidewalk level, and imagine how much more this would loom over you at
street level.

And building B on the New Road has increased 58% in length
from 170’ to 400’ and grown from 4 stories to 5!

And the staff report suggests “the design provides skyline
variation with maximum heights pushed toward the middle and gradual
reduction on edges” which is totally unrealized!

2.4.3 j) “Any change that would materially reduce the community
benefits as set forth in Section 2.6.
2.6 includes significant project features and LUCE community benefits.”

· The 5th goal of LUCE Community benefits states “does the
project adversely impact or enhance the current or future open space
and community gathering space?”

Uncovered open space has been reduced by 29% and the result-
ing width of courtyards are slot-like, canyon like spaces with land-
scape and childrens’ play areas in shadow most if not all day.
The largest of the open courtyards has 50% of it’s length measuring
10-22 feet wide while over 57 feet high. And I don’t know of any
definition of open space in any municipal code that is not open to
the sky. And the public outdoor park ar the orner of New Road and
Pennsylvania, specifically added by the Planning Commission, is now
covered space with the open space moved easterly on Pennsylvania
and contained within building B.

· Of the 5 priority categories of Community benefits in the LUCE,
#3 is “Community Physical Improvements … additional ground level open
space, trees …”

Again, open space, landscape, and sunlight have all been reduced
by 29%! And moreover, emergency access to the large interior courtyard
is partially covered, and exceeds distance and code standards.

Ron Goldman FAIA
email to ARB
subject – ARB purpose and scope
ARB Members,

In light of the history and process of the Village Trailer Park/East
Village projects, I would like to remind the ARB of the scope and purpose
you serve for the city as stated in the municipal code chapter establish-
ing the ARB – section 9.32.010.

“The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and
general welfare by establishing such procedures and providing such regula-
tions as are deemed necessary to preserve existing areas of natural beauty,
cultural importance; to assure that buildings, structures, signs or other developments are in good taste, good design, harmonious with surrounding
developments and in general contribute to the preservation of Santa Monica’s reputation as a place of beauty, spaciousness and quality; to prevent the
development of structures or uses which are not of acceptable exterior
design or appearance, are of inferior quality or likely to have a depreciat-
ing effect on the local environment or surrounding area by reason of app-
earance or value: to eliminate conditions, structures, signs or uses which
by reason of their effect tend to degrade the health, safety or general
welfare of the community; and provide a continuing source of programs and
means of improving the City’s overall appearance.”

Will Santa Monica retain its “reputation as a place of beauty, spaciousness,
and quality” if this massive project is approved? Where is the beauty,
where is the spaciousness, where is the quality? How can one make these
findings?? And no permits may issue unless you make these findings and
approve this design!

“Unless plans, elevations, landscaping and proposed signs for building or
structures or alterations thereto have been approved by the Board or on
appeal by the Commission, no building permit shall be issued for any build-
ing, structure or other development of property or appurtenances thereto, on
any property situated in an established architectural review district, ex-
cept that the Board under authority of Section 9.32.070 of this Chapter, may,
by resolution, authorize the building officer or other official to approve applications for building permits for minor or insignificant development of
property which would not defeat the purposes and objectives of this chapter…”(9.32.120).

“Ultimate power resides in the Board to reject designs under the criterion
set forth in Section 9.32.140, although it may be rarely exercised after the
City Council has given its blessing to the project:”

9.32.140 Criteria.

“The Board may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the
issuance of a building permit in any matter subject to its jurisdiction
after consideration of whether the following criteria are complied with:

a. The plan for the proposed building or structure is expressive
of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa
Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality. [DOES THIS
PROJECT MEET THESE CRITERIA?]

b. The proposed building or structure is not of inferior quality
such as to cause the nature of the local neighborhood or environment to
materially depreciate in appearance and value. [QUERY, ARE YOU RIGHT ABOUT
THIS, OR WILL THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD INCREASE IN VALUE?]

c. The proposed design of the building or structure is compatible
with developments on land in the general area. [IS A BUILDING THAT AKES
AWAY YOUR SUNLIGHT FROM ACROSS THE STREET COMPATIBLE WITH SINGLR FAMILY
DEVELOPMENTS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE?]

d. The proposed development is in conformity with the effective
guidelines and standards adopted pursuant to this chapter and all other
applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the build-
ings and structures are involved.

If the Board finds that the above criteria are complied with, the ap-
plication shall be approved Conditions may be imposed when the proposed
building or structure does not comply with the above criteria and shall be
such to bring such building or structure into conformity therewith. If an
application is disapproved, the Board shall detail in its findings the cri-
teria which are not complied with or the guidelines which are violated, or
both. Any action taken by the Board in regard to a proposed development
shall include findings, and be reduced to writing, signed by the Chairman,
and a copy thereof shall be given to the applicant, in person, or by United
States mail, upon request.

A decision or order of the Board shall not become effective until the
expiration of ten (10) days after the date upon which a ruling has been
made.

The criteria established herein may be changed, from time to time, by
ordinance, upon request of the Board, or upon motion of the City Council.
(Prior code § 9512; added by Ord. No. 959CCS, adopted 7/9/74; amended by
Ord. No. 1003CCS, adopted 7/8/75).”

You have a duty to fulfill this “purpose” cited above and withhold approval
if the project does not meet your criteria for this neighborhood or for the community of Santa Monica in general.

“The Zoning Administrator may grant an adjustment from the requirements
of this Chapter to:(a) Allow modification of parcel coverage regulations
by up to five percent of the total lot area for additions to existing struc-
tures; (b) Allow modification of the number of required parking spaces
by up to one percent of the number of required spaces;(c) Allow the modi-
fication of fence heights by up to one foot; (d) Allow the modification of
side yard setback requirements by up to six inches, but in no case resulting
in a setback of less than four feet; (e) Allow the modification of building
heights by up to six inches on parcels which have a grade differential of
five feet or more, as measured from either any point on the front parcel
line to any point on the rear parcel line, or from any point on a side par-
cel line to any point on the opposing side parcel line;(f) Allow a garage
accessory building to extend up to the rear property line of the parcel
on which it is located where otherwise prohibited; (g) Allow a building
to retain nonconforming setbacks when substantially remodeled provided all
of the following criteria are met: (1) The nonconformity of the set
back(s) and building may not be increased, (2) At least thirty-five per-
cent of the exterior walls of the building subject to the adjustment shall
remain as defined in Section 9.04.02.030,(3) There has been no prior ad-
dition under this Section;

(h) Allow a building to retain nonconforming setbacks when substantially
remodeled provided that the applicant demonstrates that all of the following
criteria are met:(1) The exterior walls are required to be replaced due to concealed structural damage caused by dry rot, termites, or other factors,
(2) The structural damage was unforeseeable through reasonable due dili-
gence prior to the issuance of a building permit for the alteration or add-
ition,

(3) The structural damage was only discovered during the course of construction,

(4) The structural damage was verified after inspection by the Build-
ing Officer or designee, while the damaged exterior walls are still in place,
and

The criteria established by this subsection (h) shall be in lieu of
the findings otherwise required by Section 9.04.20.34.060. (Prior code §
9152.3; added by Ord. No. 1612CCS § 7, adopted 1/14/92; amended by Ord. No.
1664CCS § 1, adopted 1/26/93; Ord. No. 1826CCS § 2, adopted 11/7/95; and Ord.
No. 2278CCS § 3, 11/25/08)

The Development Agreement recites (page 38, section 6.1) that the Council’s
approval is “subject to” ARB review and approval in accordance with existing regulations. Please don’t let others usurp your power by telling you this is
not within your purview – because it definitely is! Please take your posit
ion and power accordingly and make your decision based on these larger issues.

The code allows the Z.A. or planning director to make these changes as “minor changes.” What we have here goes way beyond that – in other words, they are
major and should be reviewed as such. You are being asked to correct the
planning director’s errors in his saying these are minor changes. It is his
errors and your obligation to correct them and not give your final approval
to these plans.

It is my strong belief that this project will have a depreciating effect both environmentally and economically on the surrounding residents. And it is your
right and core duty, in addition to merely passing on exterior colors, text-
ures and landscape to direct this applicant to take the best elements of both
designs and reprocess a project that is truly representative of Santa Monica’s “beauty, spaciousness, and quality.”

Ron Goldman FAIA
email to ARB
subject: ARB final thoughts
ARB Members,

In addition to the material I previously sent, the point I would add, from my experience in designing over 10,000 multi-family units for developers, is
this developer has paid conservatively $600,000 – 750,000 and realistically
well over $1 million to quote “modify” this project.

Does this expense seem minor to you when he simply could have deleted 10 of
the 15 omitted units and solved your principal concern by breaking the long
U-shaped A building in two?

Yes, 45% of the units are now single loaded, but the east elevation of build-
ing A remains 360’ long, 20% more than the length of a football field. The
west elevation of building B has grown from 170’ to 400’ as well as matured
n height from 4 floors to 5.

And height along Colorado has grown from an adolescent 36’ to a robust 57’,
while true open space, open to the sky, has been reduced 29%. And don’t fo
rget, the primary open space requested by the Planning Commission at the
intersection of the 2 new public roads unfortunately has been covered over.

And the 51 affordable units agreed to at the Rent Control Board is now 38!
And economic value of the adjacent residential area will likewise be reduced!

The Planning Director is saying that four large TV screens staring at you on Colorado, massive buildings defining the perimeters, and dark canyons in substantially reduced interior courtyards are minor?!.

Is this really what you’re willing to approve? Are city commissions and
departments becoming the unpaid staff of developers? It’s within your
domain to stand up to this challenge.

Ron Goldman FAIA

MOUTRIE REFERS COMPLAINTS AGAINST O’CONNOR TO L.A. DA

Santa Monica’s City Attorney has referred the Transparency Project’s detailed
31 Complaints, along with over 70 exhibits, against Mayor Pam O’Connor to the
Public Integrity Division of the LA District Attorney’s office.

The complaints allege repeated violations of the Oaks Initiative by O’Connor
for illegally accepting campaign contributions from developers after voting to approve their projects. City Attorney Marsha Moutrie stated that because she “report[s] directly to the City Council (of which the Mayor is a member)” her
office has a conflict of interest, as does the Santa Monica Police Department.”

The DA’s Public Integrity Division has broad powers to investigate whether Pam O’Connor committed a crime under Santa Monica law, and, based on its findings,
seek criminal sanctions. It describes its responsibility concerning public off-
icials 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 Division explains:

“Because the integrity of the election process is crucial to a free and democra-
tic 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 investigating and prosecuting allegations of…illegal campaign practices [and] illegal campaign contributions…”
See http://da.co.la.ca.us/pid.htm

These serious allegations relate to batched, coordinated contributions Pam
O’Connor accepted from those who own or are senior officers of three of the
biggest developers in Santa Monica — Hines, Macerich and Century West—after
she voted to award them a substantial public benefit.

“The Transparency Project welcomes a serious investigation by the District At-
torney of these serial violations of Santa Monica law by the Mayor. Since 2008,
Pam O’Connor’s violations have been repeated, on-going and egregious. She now attempts to trivialize the violations. In interviews with the press she has
expressed disdain for the law and portrayed herself as a public official too
busy to follow it,” said Mary Marlow, Chair of the Transparency Project. “Santa Monica residents and the Transparency Project look forward to a thorough investigation by the Public Integrity Division and the implementation of approp-
riate remedies.”

The Transparency Project is an all-volunteer group of Santa Monica residents concerned about openness and accountability in our City government and politics. Marlow said, “We believe that openness and accountability are the cornerstones
of a healthy democracy. The Transparency Project formed in 2010 after a developer-funded PAC refused to timely disclose contributor information to Santa Monica
voters. As part of our commitment, we track political contributions to city
council candidates and members. The public served by the city council must be
able to rely on their representatives to be working in their best interests.”

The members of the Transparency Project are Mary Marlow, Chair, Julie Lopez-Dad, Laurence Eubank, Zina Josephs, Carol Landsberg, Lorraine Sanchez, Elizabeth Vandenburgh and Alin Wall.