What Say You? Sheila Kuehl Interview. The Race for Supervisor

SUSAN CLOKE                                                                               

Sheila Kuehl

Columnist

California Primary Election date – June 3, 2014

California General Election date – November 4. 2014

Last day to register to vote – May 19, 2014

Sheila Kuehl discusses her candidacy for the elected position with Mirror Columnist Susan Cloke.

Susan.   What made you decide to run for Supervisor of the Third District?

Sheila.   My whole adult life has been in public service.  Issues of social justice are the focus of my life’s work: health care, foster children, the safety net, transportation and traffic, environmental protections, the arts, juvenile justice and education.

Since my 20’s my work has been focused on protecting people who need protection, fighting against any kind of discrimination and working to help people who need help.

I decided I needed to go to law school so that my work could more effectively help people. 

Out of Harvard Law I began by providing legal services for battered women.  I chaired the Sojourn Shelter for Battered Women for 17 years and served on the Board of the Ocean Park Community Center.

I went on to run for elected office so I could be more effective in my work.  I was the 1^st openly gay person elected to the State Legislature.   I carried groundbreaking legislation protecting children in all public schools in the State against harassment, discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation.

Being a Supervisor is not an entry-level job.  The five Supervisors have enormous responsibility.  It’s not the place for on the job training.  For me, being the 3^rd District Supervisor is a continuation of the work I have done all my life.

Susan.  What in your experience makes you a good fit for the Supervisor job?

Sheila. I gained an enormous amount of knowledge and experience of the very issues the County Supervisors oversee in my 14 years in the California Legislature; 6 in the Assembly and 8 in the Senate.

The County is the implementing arm of much of state and federal legislation on issues of social justice.  When I chaired Health and Human Services Committee in the State Senate I oversaw legislation and was intimately involved with all the laws and the budget on these issues.

I worked closely with the Board of Supervisors and especially with Zev as we greatly overlapped in the geographical area and the people we both represented.

I represented more than half of the 3^rd District when I was a State Legislator.  One of the things I heard over and over from constituents was that I had a great and hugely helpful District Staff.  That is key to being a good representative and it will be key in the 3^rd District.

Susan.  You worked intensively on environmental and sustainability issues at the State level.  What are the environmental and sustainability issues facing the County?

Sheila.  Water quality, the Santa Monica Mountains, the beaches and coastal areas are all the responsibility of the County Board of Supervisors.

The Supervisors have jurisdiction over water quality.  They are required to find a countywide solution for the pollution of storm water runoff and other pollutants entering the storm drain system and being carried to the rivers and ocean.

The Supervisors have to find a way to spread costs across the County of storm water treatment plants and other actions to prevent polluted water from entering our waterways.  And I would hope to do so without too heavily impacting the inland cities.

Los Angeles is the only City in the US that has a real mountain range running down the middle of it and most of that Range is in the 3^rd District.  One of my primary responsibilities will be the protection and preservation of the Santa Monica Mountains as a natural resource and for public access and use.

In addition the 3^rd District has a significant responsibility for a major swatch of coastline. We must maintain and protect the beaches for public use and to protect and enhance the cleanliness and quality of coastal water.

When I chaired the State Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee all environmental regulations and issues came before my committee and I learned both about the issues and the proposals to solve the problems facing the California environment.

I was able to work closely with Supervisor Yaroslavsky and Senator Pavley to secure Ahmanson Ranch, Gillette Ranch and other properties so there would be no development of those properties and they could be used for public recreation and the benefit of the public.

Susan.  How will you meet the energy needs of the County and protect the environment?

Sheila:  It’s important to work collaboratively with the State and Federal government and the 88 cities in the County to best prepare a future in which we will have to incentivize alternative energy.  Being collaborative is the key to a solution.

Susan.  Transportation and traffic are constant issues in the LA area.  What are you thoughts and how will you think about solving these problems?

Sheila:  Transportation is the most challenging issue for the County.  Everyone complains but few people get out of their cars.  We have to provide alternatives, most especially rail.

The light rail is coming to Santa Monica but it’s unclear that it will have sufficient parking for people who want to use the 4^th and Colorado station.  So I’m uncertain if it will be comfortable using the station and safe to get home from the station late at night.  We will need to solve that problem and make it comfortable for people to use light rail.  Perhaps something like the downtown DASH system (a downtown LA small shuttle bus) to get people to and from the station.

I think we will eventually see a line from the Valley to the airport.  That will greatly reduce congestion on the 405.

Locally we need to focus on alternatives such as bike valets, including at the Expo stops and we better Apps for people to know what the transportation alternatives are and how to get around town.

My criteria for judging programs to reduce traffic will be ease and comfort of use and affordability.

Susan.  As Supervisor how will you approach creating affordable housing?

Sheila: One of the most important things the County can do in the next few years is to make certain

that the "boomerang" monies coming in because the cities no longer get redevelopment money

(which will go, in part, to the County), is used to create and support affordable housing.  

This also means a more creative approach to helping the homeless find permanent housing, housing that will include wrap-around services to give them a chance to re-integrate into society and pick up the interrupted threads of their lives.

My caring family taught the importance of kindness and problem solving and I have a demonstrated track record of innovative thinking and problem solving.  I’ll bring those values

to working on affordable housing and all the issues of the 3^rd District.

What Say You?

What Say You? Bobby Shriver Interview. The Race for Supervisor

  

Bobby Shriver

SUSAN CLOKE

Columnist

California Primary Election date – June 3, 2014

California General Election date – November 4. 2014

Last day to register to vote – May 19, 2014

Bobby Shriver discusses his candidacy for the elected position with Mirror Columnist Susan Cloke.

Susan.   What made you decide to run for Supervisor of the Third District?

Bobby.  I was frustrated by my inability to make the Veteran’s Project a reality.  I saw homeless veterans eating out of dumpsters.  How could that be when we had the opportunity to house them at the VA?   Even though I have been working with the County and Federal government to create this housing, it is taking too long.  I believe that we should do right by our veterans and we will if I am elected Supervisor.

I also went to the County Jail.  Do you know the County is preparing to spend a billion dollars to build a new jail on the site of the old one in downtown LA? The saddest part is that the jail is the biggest mental health facility, and I say that with great irony.  So many of the people in that jail are there because they are both homeless and mentally ill.  We could and should do better.

When I ran for Santa Monica City Council in 2004 I knocked on doors to introduce myself to people.  I heard so much about homelessness and I could see it was important. 

I started to address the issue on Council.  15 -20% of our homeless population are Vets.  I thought, why not live at the VA instead of eating out of dumpsters?

We put out a good effort when I was on Council.  We had some successes but were stopped by lethargy and bureaucracy.

I want to give back to my home community and to my country.  What we do affects everyone and we are all part of one thing.

Susan.  What in your experience makes you a good fit for the Supervisor job?

Bobby:  My daddy never held an elected office but he was a person who could really get things done.  He started the Peace Corps, Head Start, and the Jobs Corp.  He started the best and most enduring programs of the last half of the 20^th Century – all through the Office of Economic Opportunity.

I’ve been a reporter.  I studied law at Yale and have practiced law.  I thought I would use what I had learned and follow my father and find ways to contribute to our country without running for office.  I’m a Shriver.

I learned, from my work on the Santa Monica City Council how important local government is.  I thought about the successes in water quality and adding parks and sustainability.

The Pier Beach had the dirtiest water quality in the State and the Council was in a position to take action, to make improvements, and we did.  The Pier Beach now has a good water quality rating from Heal the Bay.

The old Sand and Sea Club was an eyesore on the beach and a wasted opportunity.  I was instrumental in bringing the pieces and the players together and now we have the Annenberg Beach House, the only public beach club on the Coast.

Susan.  You spoke of the sustainability work of the Council.  What are the environmental and sustainability issues facing the County?

Bobby.  I think of water quality in development terms.  Our biggest energy consumption is in the electricity used to move water.  Our long-term goal in the County must be to become water independent.

I’ve read there is enough water under the San Fernando Valley to meet the needs of our residents and businesses.  But it is very polluted.  There are a lot of reasons given why it can’t be cleaned and used.  But if I am elected I am going to study it in great detail and figure out how it can be done.  It may take 20 years but people should have the right to decide if that’s the right thing to do.

Traffic and transportation are talked about wherever I go.  The County does not control the MTA but it has influence. 

Light rail is coming to Santa Monica and it’s a big deal to know we can get to downtown in 40 minutes.  To get just to Westwood now can sometimes take an hour.

I think the light rail will change everyone’s sense of freedom.  Right now no one from the Westside feels they can go downtown for an evening out because of the traffic.

The 405 is another place where the County is not in control.  I will do whatever I can to fix the problems of the 405. 

We also have to protect and grow our open space in the 3^rd District.  The Santa Monica Mountains conserved lands are an important accomplishment and one we must continue to protect and expand. 

The District includes miles of beaches and coastline and it is the job of the County to protect and enhance our natural environment.

Jobs must be created.  There are now 200,000 fewer jobs in the LA area than 20 years ago.

I have experience in attracting capital.  I did that over and over again on projects such as the work I did for my mom on the Special Olympics.

We have to act to keep the movie and TV business in LA.  We have to make California competitive again.  Jimmy Fallon is just the beginning of the industry going to NY because of the attractive business climate for the industry in NY.

Susan:  As Supervisor how will you communicate with the people in your District?

Bobby: I’m very different from most people who run for office.  I’ll do things differently.  I’m an entrepreneurial person. 

People will have to decide whether they things to be the same as usual or if they want to shake things up.  I think they want to shake things up. 

The most fun thing that ever happened to me because of being on the Council was having people coming up to me and telling me what mistakes I made. 

The bureaucracy has different info than the people I talk to in coffee shops and on the street.  I was a reporter right out of college and I wanted the real straight skinny.  Being an elected official is like being a reporter in that the greatest thing was that you could learn in a coffee shop what you couldn’t learn in an official report.  I hang out with people.  I call people to see what they think.  I still want the real straight skinny.

Local input is the most valuable input to have.  Who wants to be told they’re wrong?  But I still need to know.  I believe honestly, from the bottom of my shoes, that public officials make mistakes without even knowing they’re making a mistake if they don’t talk to people who will tell them when they’re wrong.

What Say You?

What Say You? Hines and the Council

    

 Bob Holbrook, Tony Vazquez, Ted Winterer, Kevin McKeown (L to R standing)
 Terry O'Day, Pam O'Connor, Gleam Davis (L to R seated)

What Say You?  Hines and the Council

February 7, 2014

SUSAN CLOKE

Columnist

What actually happened at the February 4 Santa Monica City Council meeting?  First, by a 4 to 3 vote the Hines Development Agreement was approved.  Second, will this meeting and this decision be remembered as the signal for a ‘taking back’ of the Council and the passage of new ethics laws in Santa Monica, as promised by the speakers in opposition?

First, the Development Agreement. 10DEV-002.  The Staff Report describes the Hines proposal as a “mixed use project totaling 765,095 square feet consisting of 473 rental housing units, 25 artist

work/live units, approximately 15,500 square feet of restaurant space, and approximately 13,891 square feet of retail space at 1681 26^th Street; Certify the final environmental Impact Report prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA; and adopt a Resolution adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Necessary CEQA Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project. Applicant/Property Owner: Hines 26^th Street LLC.”

Councilmember Davis’ initial motion for approval included reducing the square footage of office space by some 47,000 square feet in order to have the project be 50% housing and 50% office with a commensurate reduction in parking.  Along with other modifications including making the affordable housing prices more realistically affordable, adding inflation indexes and defining the net zero energy requirements. Councilmember O’Day seconded Davis’ motion.

City Attorney Moutrie then informed the Council that the appropriate action would be to direct Staff to make the required changes and to return to Council with a revised Staff Report for a new First Reading of the revised Development Agreement.

Davis and O’Day were both concerned with the timing of the vote and were focused on having a project approval at the February 4 meeting.

Council Member Davis explained why she thought the Council should act to approve the project.  She saw the approval as necessary because she thought the alternative would be the ‘reoccupying’ of the existing buildings on site and the traffic that would bring.  She said she had hoped to put forth a motion that would allow for a compromise and when it was clear that wasn’t happening she wanted to have an approval that night and so would make a motion that didn’t require any time delay in voting for approval.

Davis’ next motion eliminated the 42,000 square feet of reduction in commercial and the commensurate reduction in parking as those two modifications would require a new hearing.  The motion continued to include modifications to affordable housing rates, and advanced marketing requirements to first responders, nurses, and teachers.  The motion also required the AVR (average vehicle ridership) for the office space to be 2.0.

Council Members Winterer, Vazquez and McKeown did not support either of Council Member Davis’ motions.  They continued to be concerned about traffic impacts, meeting the LUCE commitment for no net impact on PM trips, affordable housing, improving the jobs/housing ratio in the City, issues of environmental sustainability, and the corporate image of the architectural design as proposed not expressing the values of the Bergamot Area Plan nor of a ‘Village’ as the project describes itself.

The vote was called.  Yes votes from Davis, O’Day, O’Connor and Holbrook gave the developer the approval he wanted.   But what did it give the City?

If we listen to the comments made by the overflow audience, filling the Council Chamber and the downstairs City Hall lobby at both the January 28 and the February 4 meetings we can expect challenges on all fronts.

Most telling was the SMRR letter urging the Council to vote against the project.  The letter was backed up by the presence of Denny Zane and Patricia Hoffman who took the podium to speak publicly against the project.  Zane was particularly concerned about housing.  Given that Hoffman is the current Co-Chair of SMRR and Zane a SMRR policy and decision maker of many years standing this was a significant action by SMRR. 

Davis, O’Day and O’Connor won their elections with SMRR support.  Given the importance of a SMRR endorsement in Santa Monica can we expect SMRR to not endorse and campaign for Davis, O’Day and O’Connor in the future?  At the very least we know it means there will be quite a fight within SMRR on upcoming Council endorsements.

SMRR leaders weren’t the only heavy hitters in Santa Monica opposing the project.  Leaders of all the Neighborhood Groups, representing the official positions of the Groups, spoke against approval of the Development Agreement. 

Audience members were predominately against approval but there were many supporters as well.  Many people spoke in favor of the affordable housing component of the project. Contractors groups and Union groups spoke in favor of jobs that would be coming with this project knowing that the Development Agreement allowed for 10 years of construction and pointed of that this would provide good jobs.  Respected early childhood educators spoke in favor of the financial community benefit promised for early childhood education as part of the Development Agreement.   

Now that there is an approval, what’s next?  Speakers promised a referendum on the project for the upcoming elections and the election of new Council Members.

Leaders of the Santa Monica Transparency Project, an organization focused on ethical reforms for donation reporting and voting rules, pointed out that Mayor O’Connor’s election debt had been paid by Hines and Hines associates and asked that she therefore recuse herself from the vote on the Development Agreement for the Hines project.

Mayor O’Conor asked the City Attorney for a legal opinion.  The City Attorney confirmed that O’Connor was not required to recuse herself under Santa Monica law. 

Transparency Project leaders and other speakers asked O’Connor to voluntarily recuse herself on ethical grounds even though she was not legally required to do so. 

Really?  What a mess.  And my question is why did it have to be a mess.  This should have been a great opportunity for the City.  It’s not a bad project description, mixed use, affordable housing, open space, good new street improvements, good community benefits.  But, as always, the devil is in the details. 

What’s wrong with the project?  In an overall way the project is out of sync with the scale and character of Santa Monica.  It’s too big for the neighborhood where it’s located.  It lacks urban politeness.  The architectural design is corporate but the project description is all about creativity and art and sustainability and being cutting edge.  The descriptive language is there but the architectural drawings don’t match the language.

There are significant negotiation flaws, especially in that it allows the developer to build most of the creative office space without requiring that a proportional amount of housing be developed at the same time.   The affordable housing component is good but needs considerable refinement.  How did this project get so far without these questions being asked and answered?

So we need to ask, ‘who’s minding the store?’  The Council is responsible for directing Staff and the final say is with the Council.  That is, until the voters have their final say and really that is what was promised last night at the Council meeting.

In a poignant end to the meeting they adjourned in memory of Betty Mueller and Ann Hillard.  Both Betty Mueller and Anne Hillard were long time Santa Monica activists, both were SMRR members, and both cared deeply about the City and its people.  I miss them already.

What Say You?