What Say You? Closing Santa Monica Airport

World Cruiser Biplanes

What Say You?  Closing Santa Monica Airport

SUSAN CLOKE

Columnist
March 28, 2014

At the Council Meeting of March 25 a unanimous City Council signaled its intent to direct the closing of Santa Monica Airport (SMO) and to work to protect neighbors from noise and pollution impacts until SMO can be closed.

McKeown/Vazquez moved the Staff Recommendation with modifications including an offer to the FAA to repay the grant to extinguish any lingering grant obligations. http://santamonica.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3248

During the public comment at the Council meeting assertions had been made that the City was closing SMO so they could build “Century City West.”  Council Member McKeown called the statement a “canard.”  And the McKeown/Vazquez motion directed that concept plans and zoning focus on low intensity uses.

The City anticipates that the decision and design process will be a public visioning process and the language of adopted motion states, “Continue to receive and assess community input of preferences and possibilities for the potential future use of the land.”

It was an hours long meeting with many speakers. Speakers from the organization Airport2Park saw this as a once in a century opportunity and called for using Airport lands for parks that serve all. http://airport2park.org/

People spoke representing neighborhood organizations calling for the closure of the airport due to noise and pollution and public health concerns. Santa Monica residents and residents from adjacent communities spoke about noise, pollution and public health concerns.  Scientists also expressing concern for public health joined them.

Pilots and pilot’s organizations, aviation related businesses and many Santa Monica residents spoke of the importance of the Airport to the City, to the fact that the Airport provided emergency medical transportation for patients in need, that it was an important alternative for receiving help and supplies in case of earthquake.  They also presented information on new technology and innovations that would make the airport quieter and would reduce pollution and health hazards.  Other people spoke of the educational and inspirational importance of the Airport to young people.

­History

The history of SMO is one of excitement and adventure, of the golden days of aviation.  The Wright Brothers first flight, in North Carolina, was on December 17, 1903.  By 1917, even before it was an airport, WWI biplanes used the Santa Monica field as informal landing strip.

Donald Douglas formed the Douglas Aircraft Company in 1922 and produced military and civilian aircraft.  It 1923 the site was dedicated as Clover field by the Army Air Corps, named after the WWI pilot Lt. Greayer Clover, who was killed in action in the war.

http://www.ourstory.info/library/2 ww1/Clover/SuzanneTC.html

Portions of the existing property were purchased by the City with monies from a Park Bond measure in 1926.  After that the Council changed the name to Santa Monica Airport. (SMO)

The Airport first becomes famous when the Douglas World Cruiser biplanes leave from SMO and circumnavigate the globe.

In 1929 SMO got the attention of the whole country and the international aviation community with the race of woman aviators from SMO to Cleveland.  Among the aviators flying in that race were Amelia Earhart and Pancho Barnes.

During WWII Douglas was a major defense contractor with 44,000 workers.  The plant had three shifts, seven days a week.  Sunset Park and other neighborhoods in Santa Monica were built to provide housing for the new workers.

It was also during that period that the Federal Government became involved with SMO to protect the war effort.

The first City/Federal Government Grant Agreement was signed in1941.  In 1948, with the War over, the City resumed operation of the Airport.

It wasn’t until the 1960’s that the first civilian jets arrived at SMO.  Neighboring residents, infuriated by noise and pollution sued the City and the City adopted a series of regulations to respond to resident concerns.

Airport controversy continued and by1974 the City had established the “Airport Neighbors Forum.”  Based on the Forum’s recommendations the City adopted ordinances designed to protect the neighborhoods from noise and other impacts.

With continuing controversy and after additional litigation the City entered into the Santa Monica Airport Agreement (1984) obligating the City to operate the Airport through 2015.  That agreement recognized the City’s authority to mitigate aircraft impacts through noise limits, curfews, a helicopter ban, and pattern flying restrictions.

The Present.

The Staff report states:  “For years, community members assumed that the City could close the Airport in 2015 when the 1984 agreement with the federal government will expire.

“However it is now clear that legal disputes about the City’s authority to close the Airport will inevitably extend well beyond 2015, and their outcome is uncertain.  And, beyond the legal controversies, some level of environmental assessment would likely be required to close all or part of the Airport ant that would take time.” http://www.smgov.net/departments/Council/agendas/2014/20140325/s2014032508-A.htm

The Future.

Looking at the bigger picture of aviation, the one that affects everyone, not just Santa Monica, all of aviation has changed. 

Gone are the romance and adventure and exhilaration of flying.  Once Americans put on their best clothes and sat in comfortable seats on airplanes where all passengers were ‘first class.’  On long flights ‘real food’ was served on china plates.  There were no security lines and family and friends walked with travelers across the tarmac and waved good-bye as people boarded the plane.  Now we only know about those days from old movies.

SMO was wonderful for Santa Monica.  It helped to grow the City.  It provided employment, revenue, innovation, and civic pride.

The Santa Monica of today is still a place of innovation and creativity and civic pride.  The challenges before us now are different.   The challenges are ones of sustainability and stewardship and protection of the environment. 

The questions now are how to continue the ethos of innovation and creativity and be the protectors and stewards of sustainability and the environment.

It will be a Santa Monica responsibility to decide the future of the airport land.  Of equal importance, it will be a Santa Monica responsibility to determine the process of decision-making.

That process, the visioning of the future of the airport lands, needs to meet the criteria of environmental stewardship, public protection and creativity and innovation.  Imagine an inclusive process, one inviting everyone to the table and searching for ways to come to agreement on how to use this unique public land for the benefit of all Santa Monica.

What Say You?

What Say You? Drought and Clean Water

    

What Say You?  Drought and Clean Water

Susan Cloke
Santa Monica Mirror Photo

SUSAN CLOKE

Columnist

“Drought, it’s got everyone’s attention and that’s a good thing.  The storm we had at the beginning of March dropped 2 inches of rain.  Normal rainfall in a year is about 14 inches and this 2 inches is the first rain we’ve seen,” said Gil Borboa, Water Resources Manager for the City of Santa Monica.

Borboa went on to explain that California’s water resources are in the snow in the Sierras in Northern California and the largest part of the State’s population is in the South.  “We haven’t seen the pattern of snow that we need and our reservoirs are drastically low,” said Borboa.

Santa Monica has local plans for both short term and long term responses to drought conditions.  These include water conservation, the use of recycled water and digging new wells at the Olympic Well Fields.

“Our long term plan is to make Santa Monica Water Independent by 2020,” said Borboa.  “We estimate that two new wells will produce 5000 acre feet per year and that, along with our conservation and water recycling programs, will close the gap between City demand for water and what we can supply with our own resources at the Charnock and Olympic Well Fields.

“Conservation programs will save approximately 1500 acre feet of water.  Our residents are doing very well with conservation and resident usage is calculated at 85 gallons per resident per day and that’s a very good number,” stated Borboa.  “Add offices and hotels and businesses and restaurants and the number goes to 130 gallons per day per resident and that’s not a good number.”

The Santa Monica Urban Recycling Facility (SMURF) reduces our demand for potable water because it treats urban runoff (storm drain) water to the point where it can be reused.  The City uses SMURF water to irrigate Palisades Park and provide irrigation water to Rand, the Public Safety Building and the Cemetery.

Gray water, water which would otherwise go down the drain from washing machines and showers and so on, is now a realistic option in Santa Monica. Borboa said, “Gray water systems are regulated by the LA County Health Department and, originally the regulations made using gray water very difficult.  It took quite a while for the County and Santa Monica, working together, to create regulations that are both protective and reasonable.  I think we’ve done a good job and we are now starting to see gray water systems in Santa Monica.”

Steve Fleischli, Santa Monica resident and Water Program Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) shares Borboa’s concerns about water, drought and climate change.

“This is an historic drought – the worst drought in California record keeping history.  Making it even harder we don’t know how long the drought will last and so we can’t know if we have sufficient water supplies,” said Fleischli.

“The effect is hardest on communities in the Central Valley where some communities are okay for now but are at risk of running out of water.

“Part of the reason is climate change.  While we can’t link climate change and an individual event we have learned that climate change affects drought frequency and intensity,” said Fleischli.

In March 2004 scientist and UC Santa Cruz Professor Lisa Sloan and graduate student Jacob Sewall published a study titled, “Disappearing Arctic sea ice reduces available water in the American west.” The study predicted the loss of Arctic ice would dry out California.  Sloan wrote, “I think the actual situation in the next few decades could be even more dire than our study suggested.”

“We need to be concerned not only for Santa Monica and the LA area, we also need to be concerned for the state, the nation and the global community. Globally the primary concern is access to safe and sufficient water,” said Fleischli.

“When you look globally almost 2.5 billion people don’t have access to sanitation and almost 780 million don’t have access to clean water.”

(Fleischli will be one of the speakers at the Zocalo program on the global issues of clean water on Monday, March 17. http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/event/will-we-ever-have-clean-water-for-all/)

“We also have to look at the rules of civil society. 

In the United Stats we have the Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedures Act,” said Fleischli. “Citizens have the right to petition the government, citizens have the right to sue the government to require enforcement of the rules and citizens can sue polluters to require them to follow the law.

“This is true in many parts of the world but not all,” Fleischli continued. “We have the technology to address many of these problems but if we don’t have the basic rules of civil society we won’t be successful.  If people are not empowered to participate in decision making and chart their own destiny that is a severe disadvantage and that affects us all.”

I get being discouraged. So why bother?  Nothing we do will be enough, say some.

Know that we are making a difference here in Santa Monica and that is good for our personal and environmental health.

Also know that, in California, we often set a standard for water quality replicated across the nation and in other parts of the World.

We are fortunate we live where the rules of civil society allow us to achieve so much.  There are people in every part of the world doing everything they can, often in dangerous situations, to make water safe and sufficient and available to all.

Climate change and clean water are inextricably linked.  And we are in a race to find the way to the resolution of both issues.  Knowing this makes the work more urgent.

What Say You?

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?

What Say You?  David Finkel. Diversity. Pluralism. Harmony.

SUSAN CLOKE

Columnist, Santa Monica Mirror

January 24, 2013

David Finkel is an attorney who has served as a Judge on the Santa Monica Court, a Rent Control Board Member, a City Council Member and, most recently, a College Board Member.

David Finkel
photo credit Bruria Finkel

David Finkel is the fifth Santa Monica public leader in this series of interviews with Santa Monica political thinkers.

Previous columns featured Patricia Hoffman, Co Chair of Santa Monicans for Renters Rights; Patricia Bauer, Co-Vice Chair of the North of Montana Organization; former Planning Commissioner Gwynne Pugh; and former Mayor Nat Trives.

Susan:  The political leaders columns started because I had been hearing from people all over the City that there was a “disconnect” between the Council Members and City residents.  Do you agree?

David:   No, I don’t think we have a disconnect.   I think what we have is pluralism.

In the old days, and by old days I mean late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s, everyone was on the same page because there was an overwhelming interest in protecting renters and stopping the rush to demolish apartments and replace them with condo developments.

The general concern of most people to protect tenants hasn’t changed but

by dint of the changes in value of land and changes in state law a lot of tenants were driven out of the city.  Mandated by the State, Vacancy Decontrol started a pattern of change where tenants were driven out and that resulted in a change in the population as the new people who came to Santa Monica had higher incomes and were able to afford the new rents.   The difference in income levels increased disparity of interest between the changing populations.

For example – a young couple moving into a market value apartment in Santa Monica are paying a high rent.   They are protected by rent control from their rent increasing unrestrictedly.  But they want a high-end life.  So they support rent control and also support the new stores, new restaurants and new industries we’ve seen come to Santa Monica.  

I say this in an effort to describe the changing dynamic of the population whose interests coincide with both the old and the new.

This new population came to Santa Monica for the stimulating environment of the City.   They liked the political alertness, the physical environment, the high tech image, the commitment to sustainability.  They wanted to be a part of a city with thinking, intelligent, on the move people.

At the same time you have a lot of folks who have lived here a long time and are holding on.  Each of these two groups, different as they are, have an interest in rent control.  For that reason you can understand why SMRR endorsed people keep getting reelected even though there may be significant differences on many other issues.

Rent control has become a value that is part of the fixed constellation in Santa Monica. 

Susan:  For many reasons - a change in the overall market, the new population you are describing, the completion of the LUCE – there are now great development pressures on the City.   When people speak of a disconnect they almost always are speaking of development issues.   How do you feel about the new developments proposed for Santa Monica?

David:  I do think that the Miramar plans that I’ve seen are just too big.   The Gehry proposal is also too big and yet it’s stimulating.  Frank’s building is the one I think about the most because it is a classic example of the good and the bad together.  It is both interesting and disturbing to me at the same time.

I can’t talk too much about development because it’s not my area of expertise.  But I don’t understand why we can’t both have architectural gems and keep the values of our City.

Susan:   You talk about the issue being that the proposals are “too big.”  What does “too big” mean to you?

David:  Too big is a state of mind.  If we allow these projects to be built as they are proposed it may be fine but it will change the character of the city.   We have to know that.  If we allow some to be built we can’t deny others. 

If the projects as proposed are developed we will attract a different population and we will not be a progressive community anymore.  Because the change in character assures it will become a more standardized and conservative city.   It will be a change in the nature of the City. Those of us who are here because of the values and the stimulating environment won’t like it anymore.  It is a question of keeping the values of the city alive.

Susan:  You are a SMRR member, you sat on the Rent Control Board, and you were a SMRR City Council member.   There are now six SMRR endorsed Council Members. Why do you think the Council hasn’t been holding the line on development?

David:   The SMRR members are pluralistic.  Different Council Members became part of SMRR through different constituencies.   Pam, Gleam and Terry will frequently vote with the developers.   But all of them will hold the line of rent control issues because all the SMRR members and, in fact, most of the City supports rent control.

Pam came to SMRR through friends who were already on SMRR.  Gleam came through her work with the public school community.  She is an articulate lawyer and a very nice person and she tends to moderate.  She’ll listen and then she opens the door to developers and places limits on them at the same time.  Terry came through his excellent work on environmental issues.   Kevin gives a hold the line analysis on development and votes that way.   Kevin and Tony and Ted are the three SMRR Council Members who consistently hold the line on development.

SMRR itself is divided on the issue of development.   Their divisions are usually on where to draw the line rather than being pro the development point of view.  Although I must say that development issues were vigorously discussed at the most recent SMRR meeting.

Susan:  Tell us a little bit about yourself and your history in Santa Monica.

David:    I graduated from the University of Chicago and then went on to USC for law school.   From law school I went on to work with the progressive law firm of Margolis and McTernan.  I was still practicing law when my wife, the artist Bruria Finkel, and I moved to Santa Monica in the 1960’s.  I became a member of the Rent Control Board in 1981 and was a member for 5 years.  In 1986 I was elected to the City Council on the SMRR ticket.

I left the Council and ran for an open seat on the Santa Monica Municipal Court.  I sat on the Court until 2002.   While I was there we decided that the Courts would be both fairer and more efficient if we merged the Santa Monica Municipal and Superior Courts.  We began with a test period during which we could monitor our results.  Our model was successful and as result the entire State followed our example.

Susan:  You just recently resigned from the College Board.   What interested you about the College?

David:  When I was on the Council I came to realize the differences between the College, the Council and the School Board were harming the City.  They didn’t cooperate and they were at odds. 

I decided to make it my job to change that.  We’ve worked hard to develop harmony between the three groups.  This has benefited the City.   Two obvious examples are: the Civic Center development will have a pre-school and the College will run it; we have high school students taking college classes, as they are ready.   When the three groups work together it’s wonderful and it injects power and strength into the City.

Susan:  What is your vision for the future of the City?

David:  I want the city to be a small gem.  I want all the exciting new stuff and I want it to be small in size.   I don’t want the City to fall victim to what happens to other cities where money talks and ideas leave and the city becomes rich and boring.

What Say You?