Honorable Councilmembers, and others - Granicus

Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 8, 2014 Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Consent Item 2-c

of 15

Supplemental To Consent Item 2-c City Manager's office, City Clerk: This is supplemental correspondence for Consent Item 2-C of the July 8, 2014 regular 7-PM City Council meeting. Please advance copies to those listed, at the meeting, and announce as supplemental material for the public and press even if the item is not pulled for discussion. Please also post with the agenda materials on the Internet. Thank You.

July 8, 2014 To: Councilmembers (Peter Tucker, Michael DiVirgilio, Nanette Barragan, Carolyn Petty, Hany Fangary), Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, Members of the Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission, City Clerk, City Manager, Assistant to City Manager, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Police Chief, Fire Chief, and contract-City Attorney. From: Howard Longacre, a Hermosa Beach Resident Re: Special back-room treatment evidently-already-in-process for a private developer with a future Council agenda item appearing in the works prior to any public direction or vote by the City Council and other ancillary comments. Attachment 1: Los Angeles Times Story dated: June 14, 2013 re: apparently the subject developer. Attachment 2: Prior supplemental 'Closed Session' item complaint correspondence from H. Longacre appearing on the February 25, 2014 adjourned regular meeting agenda (a closed session). Honorable Councilmembers, and others: Your 7/8/2014 regular council meeting agenda states for Consent Item 2-c; CONSENT CALENDAR: 2-c RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. Tentative Future Agenda Items The following are my comments, given freely, and they are entirely my views and opinions on everything I've stated herein. While Consent Item 2-c would appear to be a relatively innocuous item to be "received and filed" by Council's approval of the Consent Calendar, it certainly is not innocuous with respect to one item that appears among the "Tentative Future Agenda Items" list for Council's next July 22, 2014 regular council meeting. See item circled in red in the following snag from the 'Tentative Future Agenda Items' report under Item 2-c, and which states;

anny

Typewritten Text

SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER EMAILED TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FROM HOWARD LONGACRE ON 7/8/14 AT 3:38 AM

anny

Typewritten Text


of 15

"Pier/Strand Hotel – Preliminary consent to study u se of City property in application process"

First, notice that the sneaky little item has been stuck on what obviously has the potential to be a very long meeting, as perhaps an agenda item to be whisked over late in the night. It's not even clear what the item is really about, i.e. is it about building on Beach Drive, or building parking on city property? Where's the letter from the developer to the council with a council directive vote ever having been accomplished for such "future agenda item". Hell, this developer finds it easier to get an item placed on the Council's agenda than an individual council member. When was such a deal made for a developer to have such rights without approval by the voters elected-representatives. And please don't use the phony excuse "it's per the Council's goals" as that would be just about as disingenuous as they come. That would really give the City Manager super wide latitude. So what's the big deal you might ask? Well here's the big deal. SPECIAL BACKROOM WHEELING AND DEALING FOR AN OUT OF TOWN DEVELOPER O N WHAT OBVIOUSLY WILL BE A VERY CONTROVERSIAL MASSIVE DEVE OPEMENT. Notwithstanding that you, the Council, may have some poorly conceived fast-track goals for the downtown (you know, the never-ending story of Hermosa's high impact dinky downtown), but that does not give the City Manager, no matter how much he's overpaid, the right to wheel-and-deal with a private developer, and it certainly does not give three or even more members of the City Council to commence railroading through city processes leading to what, if eventually approved, is to be the biggest and most-intensive, massive development to be built in Hermosa's downtown in 75 years, and notwithstanding that it's


of 15

being constantly referred to as a "boutique" hotel, i.e. small and cutesy upscale. Upscale by the way was the over-used term of the 1980s and 1990s. Now we have the "boutiques", the latest scam-term in town. The City was subjected to these massive downtown hotel projects all throughout the 1980s when they were being railroaded though just like this project is already being attempted. A couple neophytes on Council are again being spoon-fed the pabulum and of course Hermosa's grand ceremonial Mayor DiVirgilio (the ultimate sneak as I refer to him) is probably involved as usual, and all seem to be eating it up as if they can't get enough. Some may have even accomplished some 4th grade arithmetic calculations and multiplied out all the transient occupancy tax to be rollin-in, but of course without considering all the other impacts and costs that will also be rollin-in to the city 24/7, with that so-called TOT. The debate on this latest hotel scam will come in due time, however for now, where is there a single document from this developer submitted to the City Council for display in a public meeting where the developer has stated so much as a simple request for such public agenda item already on this item 2-c 'Future Agenda Items' list. I can't think of anyone else getting so much special attention as this developer, who at his own risk evidently decided to roll the dice and close escrow on the Mermaid properties before getting any kind of official approvals. It seems like the developer assumes he's going to get whatever he wants. Why is that? So has there been de facto Brown Act violations here? I understand the developer has met privately with every Council member and also the City Manager. Yet there's been no document presented in a public meeting as to what each and every one of you agreed to do for this developer. Is this the new paradigm of filthy, rotten, garbage government in Hermosa Beach, under the guise of the Mayor's use of the word "transparency" when he ran for election and re-election? Is that what is to be expected now? I'm sorry, but this stinks really, really badly. The Tentative Future Agenda items is supposed to list all the upcoming items that are routine having to do with running the municipality and interacting with other agencies, etc., along with the specific items the Council has directed to be placed there and other innocuous, ticky-tacky stuff to give all concerned a heads-up. But then there's this backroom item, prior to so much as any letter whatever from the mysterious developer who apparently is now directing the City Manager and the Community Development Director like puppets on strings, and again without so much as an application or a letter regarding his proposed application for the council to deal with anything specific in a public meeting. It's all BACK ROOM WHEELING AND DEALING is it not? This developer item needs to be removed from the Future Agenda Items until the developer communicates that he wants whatever special treatment it is that he wants so the public can be among the first to know, not the last, and not via what I and others evidently view as these PR sham-sessions he's having at the Beach House.


of 15

You may recall that you already had a filthy, rotten, backroom, Brown Act violating Closed Session item February 25, 2014 (earlier this year) for this developer to supposedly work up price and terms payment for vacating the City's owned, important, and extremely needed and beneficial Beach Drive street easement. That closed session agenda is archived at; "http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&event_id=1295" with an image of same following here; My supplemental to that closed session is included as Attachment-2 of this correspondence.

So who in Hell are you on Council, or the City Attorney, or the City Manager to think that you are doing so damn much good in this city that you can do any damn thing you want to railroad through this private developer's massive, downtown-destroying project, and thus such that he can max out his company's profits, without the public knowing really what the Hell is going on. If you want to permanently damage the downtown and change the entire character of our dinky downtown to make it like the plastic over-developed mess Huntington Beach made of their beach-front town, (which for them is actually on a major highway i.e., Pacific Coast Highway), then state that in a meeting. State i.e., "we the neophytes who were actually surprised as punch to actually squeak onto the city council dais know what is best for this 100+ year old town and want to move fast to wreck it as other councils were not able to." i.e., by operating on the premise, "nothing gets done if we debate the issue". Well guess what again; the wrong thing doesn't get done as often when things are done right and carefully with the real electorate knowing what is being done.


of 15

Now the developer has had his first PR thingy for the public in of all stupid places as the Beach House Hotel meeting room. Where better perhaps to stage an insider's event? Now another PR thingy is to be had by the developer at the same insider's location. The developer has stepped into a potential quagmire, almost exactly like the E&B oil driller has. What is it about these folk with an insatiable need-for-greed that causes them to think Hermosa Beach is here for the taking as a doormat to wipe their feet after they perhaps talk to Hermosa Chamber of Commerce big shots and City Council people? Don't they get it that these are not the people who really care about the city. Sooner or later they get around to the real people when a vote is required, unless they can slip everything though administratively or with 3 sneaky votes from pabulum fed Council members. I don't know how honorable or dishonorable this latest Hermosa wannabe profiteer may be, however I did recall an L. A. Times article form about a year ago, and sure enough it appears to be about this very same developer. It certainly does not give this developer a stellar reputation or anything to brag about if it is accurate reporting. I have attached the article. I assume our former L.A. County Assessor will eventually be doing some jail time, if not already. Further I keep hearing about this developer as being somehow involved in the P.V. Terranea project. Well if any Hermosa project gets the kind of scrutiny that that relatively low-density project received after the decades since the demise of Marineland, well then I will probably have a lot less concerns. However, it looks like that is not to be the case in Hermosa Beach if all that has gone down so far is an indication of what to expect. By the way, how many of you visited Marineland back in the late 1950s when it opened? Those of you who have so very little institutional knowledge of the past South Bay need to very careful. It's always incredible, the damage that can be done by people who think they know so much, but whom actually no so damn little. History is full of disasters from such ignoramuses given the power. Fill the downtown with high density hotels and believe me people will know you well as the ones who destroyed the town for your own quick need to feel good like as if you are getting something big-time accomplished in the dinky downtown. You want to feel good. Pave the streets, fix the sidewalks, make the town better for the residents, the men, women and children, and tell the developers that there's zoning in place that's more than liberal and if you can't build to it go somewhere else. Believe me, once you are off council no one remembers you unless you damage the town. Just because there's a cesspool of bars downtown and you may need a glass of wine in your hand, morning, noon, and night does not give you the authority to do damage to this town, especially after you've been elected basis an inane general law city method of vote counting. Remove the future agenda item from the 2-c document and tell the city manager to inform the developer that he needs to communicate directly to the council if he wants special


of 15

items put on the agenda. Then his item perhaps can appear on a future, 'Future Agenda Items' list. And in such case he should be willing to pay for such special agenda item. The city spent a fortune working up changes to the Cypress Avenue M1 zone permitted uses to permit beer brewing, only to have the person who requested same to disappear from city without so much as a Thank You. At least the direction came from the Council to do all that for free. What makes this developer so damn special? I hope you all know there is a California required procedure for vacating a street easement. Vacating the City's Beach Drive easement would be the most incredibly dumb thing accomplished in this city in a long time. And if this developer wants the City to build parking for his project on scarce public property he'd better be willing to pay for the real value of the land, the cost of the construction, and rent on same in perpetuity, not the cheap $28,900 in lieu fee for a phantom non-existent parking space. And certainly not the incredible giveaway made to the Beach House Hotel. At least the Beach House is a condo development and the city's revenues climb every year as its condo's resell. Such will not be the case with this development evidently. With time the property taxes will fall far behind the value of the property. Everything about this development and the processes to date stinks rotten, from the illegal closed session, to this latest scam of sticking this thing on the 'Tentative Future Agenda' Items without a specific Council vote and directive being accomplished, and before that only after a letter from the developer and his willingness to pay for such studies and agenda item. You on Council need to clean up the filthy, rotten, disgusting, sneaky process of the way this developer is being handled. It seems to get filthier and rottener by the day. And judging by the attached Los Angeles Times reporting, the developer certainly does not seem to have a stellar record, notwithstanding the charity stuff that seems to be listed prominently all over the developer's website for everyone to view. Incidentally I was always taught that charity was something you accomplished, but did not brag about. Charity loses its charity when you have to brag about it. And it especially loses its luster when it's done to reduce taxes and then bragged about on top. Why can't this developer build like other honorable developers and homeowners do in this town, to the long developed code? If anything the code for the height limit probably needs to be tightened up and lowered 4-feet in the downtown to match the Manhattan Beach very successful, voted-downtown height limit of 26-feet. It certain has worked well in Manhattan Beach, and their down is being well persevered for the residents, not for a bunch of outsiders to be invading our downtown 24/7 and need-for-greed profiteers. Don't we have enough visitors already? Don't try to sneak this rotten massive development through under the smoke stream of the oil mess that City Attorney Jenkins is unquestionably, in my view, responsible for, and from the very outset, and who is still of course getting fat-rich from, at the expense of Hermosa taxpayers. This massive hotel development and the oil-mess may well bring a full-scale "recall" to fruition.


of 15

Attachments 1 and 2: Attachment 1: Los Angeles Times Story dated: June 14, 2013 re: apparently the developers.

Los Angeles Times Articles

Builder investigated in alleged campaign money-laundering for Noguez Eskandar Bolour is suspected of asking two company executives to contribute $500 each to the L.A. County assessor's campaign and having his daughters reimburse them. June 14, 2013|By Jack Leonard and Jack Dolan, Los Angeles Times A Beverly Hills-based property developer is under investigation for allegedly using his daughters and two of his firm's attorneys to launder illegal campaign contributions to Los Angeles County Assessor John Noguez, according to a search warrant obtained by the Los Angeles Times. The warrant comes as the district attorney's influence-peddling investigation focuses on whether commercial property owners who contributed to Noguez — and received significant property tax breaks — violated the law by hiding the true source of campaign money to the assessor. Eskandar Bolour, founder of real estate firm Bolour Associates, with local properties stretching from the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach, is suspected of asking two company executives to contribute $500 each to Noguez's campaign and reimbursing them for those contributions, according to the warrant. Reimbursement checks signed by Bolour's daughters were written to the two executives, attorneys Elliot Shirwo and Todd Allen, the warrant said. The two lawyers were offered immunity to testify last year before a grand jury that was probing allegations of corruption in the assessor's office, according to the warrant. The warrant includes copies of checks dated May 2010 from Shirwo and Allen to Noguez's campaign. Also included are copies of the alleged reimbursement checks, which were dated several days before the donations were made. Those checks each include memo lines that read "Noguez Assessor 2010 Contribution." No charges have been filed against Bolour or his associates named in the warrant. District attorney's officials declined to comment, saying their investigation is ongoing. Bolour is one of many property owners who were seeking reductions in property tax assessments when they contributed to Noguez's campaign for assessor. The largely obscure


of 15

county position is responsible for determining property taxes on more than 2 million homes and businesses. Campaign records show that Bolour and one of his daughters, Sima Pakravan, each gave the maximum $1,000 to Noguez's general election campaign in the fall of 2010, but neither gave to his primary campaign earlier that year. Shirwo and Allen contributed to the primary in May 2010, records show. Pakravan and her sister, Ilana Bolour Naim, wrote them checks for the same amount a few days earlier, according to the warrant. By May 2010, Noguez, who had worked for decades as a county property appraiser, had been promoted to special assistant to the assessor and was the clear front-runner to win election to the agency's top job. Noguez and two others in the assessor's office are accused of being involved in a scheme that knocked hundreds of millions of dollars off the assessed values of properties in exchange for bribes and contributions to Noguez's 2010 campaign. The assessor's office reduced the value of Bolour's properties by at least $9.8 million in 2010 and 2011, prompting the county to send his companies refund checks worth $137,696, according to a Times review of county tax records. In 2009, Bolour's companies received less than $8,000 in county property tax refunds, records show. Bolour, his daughters and Allen did not return calls for comment. Shirwo told two reporters who visited Bolour Associates' office on Wilshire Boulevard that he was "not in a position" to respond on behalf of the firm and asked the reporters to leave. He said he would get back to them about the search warrant's allegations but did not return calls in the weeks that followed. The 2010 and 2011 tax refund checks coincided with a sharp downturn in property values, and it is unclear whether the assessor's reevaluations for Bolour properties were out of the ordinary. Investigators did not mention the tax refunds in their application for the warrant. Prosecutors have charged Noguez with taking more than $185,000 in bribes from Ramin Salari, a prominent tax consultant and campaign contributor, to lower taxes for properties on the Westside and in the South Bay. Salari has also been charged in the alleged scheme, along with a top executive in the assessor's office, Mark McNeil, and a former county appraiser, Scott Schenter. They have all pleaded not guilty. Noguez, who took a paid leave of absence last June and spent nearly five months in jail after his arrest in October, is still officially the county assessor and continues to receive his $197,000 salary.


of 15

In announcing the first criminal charges against Noguez last fall, then-Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley described the case as the most significant public corruption scandal involving a county official in decades. He said his office was also examining whether some donors were illegally reimbursed for contributions to Noguez's election campaign. The investigation has been handled by the district attorney's Public Integrity Division, which prosecutes corruption cases involving government officials. The office's Justice System Integrity Division, which handles criminal prosecutions of attorneys, was contacted about the money-laundering allegations in September, district attorney's investigator Holly Williams wrote in the search warrant. Williams used the warrant to obtain bank statements for Shirwo, Allen and Bolour's daughters in late March. [email protected] [email protected]

Attachment 2: Prior supplemental 'Closed Session' item complaint correspondence from H. Longacre appearing on the February 25, 2014 adjourned regular meeting agenda (a closed session).

February 22, 2014 To: Hermosa Beach City Council, City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney. From: Howard Longacre, A Hermosa Beach Resident. RE: The 'Cart being before the horse' unnecessary b ackroom wheeling and dealing - closed session Item-3 (re: vacation of Beach Drive - negotiation of price and terms), which is lacking in having had first, an open-meeti ng, agendized item giving clear reason and specifics for such early secret negotiat ion of the street segment vacation, and without clear prior announcement in o pen session of such negotiation per the true intent of Government Code Section 5495 6.8, and not the "League of California Cities" Brown Act tweaked interpretation . Honorable Councilmembers and others: The adjourned Council Meeting to commence at 5:30 PM February 25 states in its Agenda Closed-Session ITEM-3, second portion; Adjourned Regular meeting - Open/Closed Session 2/25/2014 5:30 PM at City Hall. 3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Governm ent Code Section 54956.8 Property: Beach Drive between 13th Court and Pier Avenue City Negotiator: City Manager


of 15

Negotiating party: Strand and Pier Holding Company Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment of vacation of City right-of-way

Clearly this is an unnecessary and premature use and abuse of a Closed Session meeting in that the matter obviously pertains to one developer, the buyer of the "Mermaid" properties located on the Strand and Pier Avenue, and further the subject of the matter has not been properly addressed or submitted in any true manner in an Open Session. Members of the City Council are evidently being led down the 'Primrose Path' by someone(s) on and/or off Council to believe that they are doing such grand things that they can stretch interpretations of California law, and do things in less than the most honorable way, so as to hide from Hermosa's residents and stakeholders what they are really up to. Why all the secrecy? Are members of the Council so concerned with their next attempt at re-election that they will do anything to patronize a few and say to Hell with real open transparent government, rather than doing things slowly, openly, transparently, and first seeking input from all concerned, and ensuring that all concerned have all the information first, so they can intelligently contribute before decisions have been made through backroom wheeling and dealing. Or do councilmembers and a handful of others believe they know what is best and absolutely need to do things deceitfully in secret, as they are smarter than the public as a whole? It is amazing how politicians on small California city councils are manipulated and patronized once elected, usually by those with a need-for-greed and ego-driven-power, and then used at the expense of those who actually elected them. Questions/Comments re the essentially giving-away of a portion of Beach Drive: Has an open-session agenda item been accomplished in regards to vacating the subject Beach Drive per the real intent of Government Code Section 54956.8, or are you following City Attorney Michael Jenkins and the distorted (in my view) "League of California Cities" interpretation of government code section 54956.8? Has there been a formal request, application, or petition presented in open session or anywhere to vacate the subject Beach Drive as I understand is to be first accomplished? Isn't that the first step to do things the right way? Who is it that really wants to vacate the subject Beach Drive? Is it the City? Or is it the developer? When and where was the subject of vacating Beach Drive properly brought forward as an agenda item and discussed in an open session Council meeting? Has the Council, Planning Commission, or Public Works Commission had any kind of Public Hearing with the people of the community, i.e. the Electorate, who are at the top of the City's Organizational Chart (attached herein on the last page), to determine if they desire the historic character of Hermosa Beach to be significantly and forever changed, with the essentially free giveaway of city streets via Council's de facto backroom wheeling and dealing with a specific developer(s), and with such backroom wheeling and dealing having the objective to intensify activity and density in the downtown just to perhaps


of 15

increase future bed tax or sales tax, notwithstanding, that the enlarged bureaucracy to be necessary for such increased downtown intensification will be eating up such increased revenue at a rate faster than it comes in, and without considering the increased cost of wear-and-tear on the community's infrastructure, and the cost in degradation to the residents' quality of life? What is the meaning of "price and terms of payment" in the closed session item? I was under the understanding that you could not vacate a street for payment? Has City Attorney Jenkins suggested to you a legal loophole workaround, as I would characterize such, for doing that? Why is it so important to have all these backroom meetings between individual council members, others and a specific developer? When does that become illegal closed government, and de facto illegal serial meetings? Why can't such wheeling and dealing be out in the open via the agenda open meeting process? I suspect that if you ask the people of the city if they trust the Council to get the best deal behind closed doors, the majority would tell you they don't. After all, look at the giveaway, secretly-worked-up deal the City Staff, with Jenkins contract oversight, wanted to give to the favored Hermosa bar operator for parking Lot-A at the last meeting? What a give-away of public property with the City getting so little in return, virtually net-nothing in return, except of course more downtown chaos. It is my view that the Council, city staff, and City Attorney are in fact, likely amateurs in comparison to most developers when it comes to negotiating in private. The Mermaid buyer/developer seems to already have control of Hermosa's City Council with everything about what they are up to with you, seemingly being accomplished in private meetings. Is what you are doing really and honorably legal, and in the best interests of the community, and more importantly in the interests of open, honorable government? What is the big secret with respect to vacating the street, or does someone fear the residents finding out of what Council is up to? Is someone scared to death of those who voted for Council; scared that the residents may cause Council to look stupid, or mess up the backroom wheeling and dealing? Why is the Council negotiating the vacation of the street in light of the fact that there apparently has been no petition submitted to vacate the street? Don't you have the "cart before the horse" per California law, or are you trying to do a slick backroom deal so you can then justify ignoring any public outrage over giving away Beach Drive in a secret process? Of course you will have to hold public hearings re: vacating a street, but is it not true that after you have done your backroom wheeling and dealing, that those public hearings, after the fact, will just be so much legally-required window dressing, to be essentially ignored? What is it you are negotiating when there has been no process begun to vacate the street?


of 15

There is a process per the California Streets and Highway Code for vacation of a street. See; PART 3. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS, AND SERVICE EASEMENTS VACATION LAW. CHAPTER 1. SHORT TITLE AND DEFINITIONS ...............sections.. 8300-8309 CHAPTER 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS ..............................sections.. 8310-8317 CHAPTER 3. GENERAL VACATION PROCEDURE ..........sections.. 8320-8325 The Council should remember or be informed that when a prior council bought the Storage Lot (south of city hall) it may have made sense to negotiate in closed session and not inform the residents in advance as to what they were up to, however in the end the Seller took the City to the cleaners and the City paid top dollar in my view. However, there is no reason for the Mermaid properties developer not to write a letter for open session agenizing, explaining what his/her grand plan is that he needs the street vacated and for all of this to be done out in the open. When "lay Electeds" (notwithstanding that two on Council are attorneys) of a council have been convinced by someone(s) that they are making such grand decisions for the improvement of the city, they should step back and ask themselves why they need to be wheeling and dealing in sneaky backroom-style. Sneaky backroom wheeling and dealing was the hallmark in my view of Councilmembers Michael DiVirgilio and Kit Bobko during the prior 6 years. That's why Bobko's gone, and why DiVirgilio will most likely be thankfully, gone in 22 months. Dictator Adolf Hitler had a grand plan too, for his country, and the world for that matter. It's not a far reach to realize how quickly open government can be destroyed in little steps. There is a reason for open, careful government. It's because closed government is ultimately, in the end, the very-most expensive kind of government, unless perhaps you yourself are part of such a government, i.e. in it for your own benefit, whatever that be. This is why in my view it is imperative that you bring on a new City Attorney, someone not involved with so many South Bay governments, the League of California Cities, and South Bay Council of Governments. It's no wonder he nods off during Hermosa meetings. He's spread too thin, apathetic, and has stayed far too long. Jenkins in my view is singularly responsible for the lousy (non-legally backed up) advice leading to a prior council's less than careful cancelling of the Macpherson oil drilling contract, and Jenkins is still sitting there essentially directing the operation of this city and profiting off the oil mess it certainly does seem. What is the matter that you on the Council do not know how and when to push out an expensive worn-out marble and bring in some fresh new-thinking for Hermosa's legal counsel? It isn't rocket science. In my view Jenkins should have been gone the day Macpherson filed suit against the city for its cavalier action. Since the Council may believe that all this backroom wheeling and dealing and endless downtown manipulation is ultimately so good for the city, don't be surprised when people refer to you as ego-driven, and downtown-obsessed become dictators.


of 15

Re: the vacation of the subject Beach Drive, it would be more proper for your constituents to hear of all this first from the Council in open session, instead of through the gossip mill. Giving away this downtown street to expedite mega-plastic-development and intensification of the area will be set a horrible precedent. Beach Drive is an important thoroughfare for bicyclists, pedestrians, public safety vehicles, city infrastructure, and the historic low-profile, open-air character of the downtown dating back decades. You will be making a monumental mistake turning Hermosa Beach into a downtown Santa Monica and giving away public streets for massive plastic development. The Council is in my view and perception, most-evidently violating the Brown Act, by talking among itself in closed session and with a specific developer/buyer to do what you believe to be grand things downtown. Vacating the subject Beach Drive will set up a precedent to do the same for perhaps Hennessy's Strand property, and then for the Mangurian-estate Strand-and-their-other-properties, and of course for the Greenwald properties. The Council seems to just want to plaster the downtown with intense hotel development, parking structures, and make it as ugly, dense, and useless to the residents as downtown Santa Monica, and without even mentioning the backroom dealings to work up a proposal to raise the height limit for selective downtown developers? It's truly rotten government when lay council people take it upon themselves to wheel and dealing in the backroom, making big shot decisions to forever change and destroy the historic character of this 1.3 square mile residential beach town to create a sterilized plastic downtown, just as Huntington Beach destroyed and plasticized their commercial beachfront area with crappy big developments. Has Council considered the fact that it still, year after year, has no real, serious action plan for Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard, with both just continuing to languish decade after decade? Do you ever walk the PCH sidewalks? I have many times. They are usually filthy, they're cracked, and dangerous being so close to speeding traffic. Why does the city, year after year, neglect PCH and Aviation and then have this never-ending obsession with downtown intensification and of course as called, never-ending "downtown revitalization"? If Council wants to increase revenue to the city, it should always first and foremost concentrate on improving the residential quality of life and PCH/Aviation. Sales taxes will never do the job from the downtown. Only residential values, new car dealers and hotels on the highway, which don't eat the public safety budget alive, as they do downtown, should be fostered. Downtown businesses will take care of themselves when you stop screwing around endlessly with the downtown, and simply enforce the codes and rules already on the books. The Mermaid developer bought the properties. No one forced the developer. His/her right! There's zoning and building codes. Leave the developer alone to do his thing per the code the way Raju has with his "Boutique" fully-parked hotel.


of 15

Stop with your grandiose planning and your backroom wheeling and dealing. "Get off the Plaza" and stop wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. Consider getting back to basics and concentrating first and foremost on real open government. The best way to do that first in my view would be to replace City Attorney Jenkins and bring in new contract counsel services. You would best instruct the Mermaid developer that if he wants all kinds of special treatment, with the City Council changing the character of the downtown into big-time urban development like that of Manhattan, NYC, with gridlocked cabs, limos, and endless pollution, noise, crime, glitz and all that goes with most developers' general need for greed, then for him to at least come to the council in an open meeting in writing with requests for the special treatment he wants. All this wheeling and dealing with the E&B oil people, and now the Mermaid buyers, well, you know it's really kind of nauseating. Hermosa Beach is not Miami Beach. It's time that Hermosa Beach has real, open government, rather than this year-after-year phony-charade of "transparent" government with the electorate being the last to know what significant things are going on. On a side note, why is it taking so long (it's been three months) for photograph-portraits of the three new members of Council to be displayed in the Council foyer? The following for reference again is the city's organizational chart. It should be enlarged and prominently displayed in the Council Foyer for everyone attending a City Council meeting to see firsthand, and understand, not hidden away in the budget. A colored version ready for enlargement and display in the Council Foyer is present in the front pages of the City's 2013-2014 adopted-budget. PLEASE SEE NEXT PAGE.


of 15

-- end of supplemental --

Honorable Councilmembers, and others - Granicus

Documents

Transcript of Honorable Councilmembers, and others - Granicus