an educational role within the agency and in the community. Santa Clara’s ethics committee, for example, is a Council subcommittee composed of three councilmembers, focused on the refinement and establishment of policies and procedures regarding Council operations and general good government practices, as well as further implementation of the city’s Code of Ethics. Other staff regularly attend. The Committee has no investigative, enforcement, or subpoena power. The committee meets quarterly, and meetings are open to the public.
Ethics Hotline/Officer
This can serve as a sounding board for public officials on public service ethics dilemmas.
In the private sector, many large companies provide such a source of advice for their people. This kind of position can also play an educational and training role.
Santa Monica currently has an ethics hotline: https://www.santamonica.gov/processexplainers/how-to-report-a-possible-ethical-violation-by-staff The City of Anaheim recently created an Ethics Officer position. The annual cost of the position is approximately $350,000. The Ethics Officer’s role is to promote public confidence in the integrity of local government and its operation, and its functions include, but are not limited to:
Serving as the city resource for understanding of laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to the conduct of public employees, elected and appointed officials, candidates, lobbyists, and others, including the California Political Reform Act, California Public Records Act, and local, state, and federal statutes. Collaborating with key staff and departments such as the City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, City Clerk’s Office, to advance conflicts and ethics efforts, and develop and implement an ethics program.
Develop, implement, and sustain an education program for employees, officials, lobbyists, stakeholders, and consultants to help them understand their responsibility to perform in compliance with all laws, rules, and regulations. Evaluate and propose improvements to laws and policies relating to campaign finance reform, lobbying, governmental ethics, and conflicts of interest. Collaborate with the city’s audit division to manage a fraud hotline and investigate incidents reported through the hotline.
Contract Enforcement by the FPPC
The FPPC contracts with cities, counties, and special districts to allow the FPPC to enforce local ethics and campaign finance laws. This is authorized by Government Code Section 83123.6. The contract scope of work includes advising, informing, auditing, and enforcing local campaign finance and ethics ordinances, for a fee. The FPPC will ensure candidates and campaigns are following the rules and public officials are adhering to ethical standards.
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1146 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
CALIFORNIA ETHICS COMMISSIONS
LONG BEACH
Ethics Commission (longbeach.gov)
Creation and authority. Created by the voters via Measure CCC in 2018, which adopted a charter amendment adding Section 2400, as well as amending other relevant laws to create a commission of Long Beach residents to monitor, administer, and implement government ethics in the city.
Composition. Seven commissioners, serving four-year terms. Two appointed by the Mayor who have represented local civic organizations with a demonstrated history of involvement in local governance. Two appointed by the City Auditor who have a background in public policy or public law, government ethics, or open government matters, campaign finance, auditing of compliance with ethics laws, protection of whistleblowers, or technology as it relates to open government. The final three commissioners are appointed by the Commission, by affirmative vote of at least three members, following a public recruitment and application process.
Powers and Duties. The Commission serves as an advisory body to the City Council, and does not have subpoena power, or the authority to conduct investigations or enforcement, or impose penalties.
Provide support and guidance to agencies and officials in administering the Charter and other laws, specifically in areas of campaign finance, conflicts, and government ethics.
Provide policy recommendations to Mayor and Council in areas of campaign finance reform, lobbying, government ethics, and conflicts of interest, and report on effectiveness of laws.
Assist with development of the local Conflict of Interest code. Education, advocacy and training.
Investigation and Enforcement. The Long Beach Ethics Commission does not have investigation or enforcement authority.
Penalties. The Commission does not have the authority to assess penalties.
Staff assistance and budget. The City Clerk is charged with staffing and administrative management of the Commission. One dedicated City Clerk position is budgeted, as well as time from a management position each in the City Manager and City Attorney’s Office.
LOS ANGELES
Laws - Ethics Commission (lacity.gov)
Creation and authority. Established by Charter Amendment. The Commission has authority over the Charter, statutes, and ordinances concerning campaign financing, lobbying, conflicts of interest and governmental ethics.
Composition. Five members. Mayor, City Attorney, Controller, President of Council, and President Pro Tem of the Council each appoint one member, subject to confirmation by majority vote of the Council. Members serve staggered five-year terms. No member who
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
completed a five-year term is eligible for reappointment. Members must be registered voters of the City of Los Angeles. Members have limits on their ability to run for office during and following their term on the Ethics Commission. Members may be removed for cause by the Mayor with concurrence of the Council majority, or by vote of 2/3 of the Council.
Powers and Duties.
Receive documents and conduct audits pursuant to the Charter. Administer the municipal lobbying ordinance.
Act as filing officer under the Political Reform Act. Audit disclosure statements and investigate alleged violations of state law, the Charter, and city ordinances within their jurisdiction and report findings to City Attorney and appropriate enforcement authorities.
Report to the Council every three years on the effectiveness of ordinances within their jurisdiction, and make recommendations for reform.
Maintain a whistle-blower hotline.
Assist departments in compliance with laws, and develop an education program. Issue written opinions upon request on areas within their jurisdiction.
Investigations and Enforcement. If, upon receipt of a sworn complaint, the Commission determines there is sufficient cause to investigate, it will perform an investigation.
Investigations are confidential. The Commission has subpoena power over people and records. If the Executive Director determines there is probable cause a violation occurred, the Executive Director shall cause an administrative enforcement accusation to be issued and served. After an accusation is issued, the Commission shall cause a public evidentiary hearing to be held to determine if a violation has occurred. The person accused of the violation has a right to be present and represented by counsel. If the Commission determines no violation occurred, it shall publish a declaration so stating.
Any interested person may seek judicial review of any action of the commission.
Penalties. If the Commission determines on the basis of substantial evidence a violation has occurred, it shall issue an order that requires the violator to (1) cease and desist the violation; (2) file any reports or other documents required by law; (3) pay a monetary penalty to the General Fund of up to $5,000 per violation or three times the amount at issue, whichever is greater.
Divestiture: In the event a member of a city board or commission is disqualified during any 365 day period from acting on (1) three or more agenda matters by reason of the same investment in a business entity, the same interest in real property or the same source of income, or (2) 1% or more of the matters pending before the board or commission by reason of any investments in business entities, any interests in real property or any sources of income, the commission shall examine the nature and extent of the conflicts and shall determine whether the member has a significant and continuing conflict of interest. If the commission so determines, it shall order divestment of the conflicting investment, interest or source of income. The Council may, by ordinance,
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1148 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
impose additional requirements to assure that continuing conflicts of interest by members of boards and commissions are adequately monitored and avoided.
Staff assistance and budget. The Commission has an Executive Director who is appointed by and serves at the will of the Commission. The Executive Director may hire additional staff. The City Attorney provides legal services to the Commission. In the event of a conflict, the Commission may employ independent staff counsel. The Commission also has the authority upon 4/5 vote of its members to appoint a Special Prosecutor, on recommendation of the City Attorney. $250,000 shall be included in each Fiscal Year budget of the Commission for this purpose. The Special Prosecutor shall be selected by a three judge panel, and shall have the authority to prosecute criminal and civil actions in the name of the People.
Ballot Measure. A pending measure on the November ballot would enhance the responsibilities of the ethics commission, propose a $6.5 million annual budget for the Ethics Commission, update fines for violating ethics laws from $5,000 to $15,000 per violation, and allow the Ethics Commission to retain its own legal counsel. The special prosecutor allowance would be raised to $500,000.
SAN DIEGO
Ethics Commission | City of San Diego Official Website
Creation and authority. Formed by ordinance in 2001 for the purpose of monitoring, administering, and enforcing the city’s government ethics laws. It is governed by Section
26.0401-26.0456 of the San Diego Municipal Code. The Commission investigates elected city officials, candidates for city office, certain employees, consultants, and members of boards and commissions, among others.
Composition. Seven members appointed by the Mayor from a pool of nominees submitted by the Council and City Attorney and confirmed by the Council. At least two members must have been candidates for elective office or otherwise held high level positions in a campaign. At least three members must be attorneys. No more than three members may be registered with the same political party. Members serve up to two four-year terms.
Powers and Duties.
Monitoring, administering, and enforcing the city’s government ethics laws and proposing new ethics reforms.
Conducting investigations, subpoenaing documents, referring violations to appropriate enforcement agencies, and auditing disclosure statements. Advising and educating city officials, candidates, political committees, and lobbyists about ethics laws.
Investigations and Enforcement. The Commission handles civil administrative complaints for violations of the city’s ethics laws. Enforcement extends to elected officials, unclassified city employees, city consultants required to file economic disclosures, board and commission members who file Form 700, city-affiliated agencies (such as Convention Center), campaigns, and lobbyists.
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1149 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
Administrative actions must be commenced within three years of the alleged violation. An investigation may be commenced by formal complaint, or by informal complaint which are brought before the Commission in the discretion of the Executive Director. Commission staff performs an initial review to determine whether the subject of the complaint is appropriate for consideration by the Commission. Commission staff does not begin a formal investigation until authorized to do so by a vote of the Ethics Commission. The Commission votes on how to proceed in closed session. If the case advances to a probable cause hearing, the Commission has separate hearing procedures to provide the accused with due process. Cases do not often advance to this stage. The Executive Director is authorized to negotiate stipulated settlements, and once approved by at least five commissioners, stipulations are posted on the Commission’s website, explaining the basis for the violation, the fine, and any mitigating circumstances. The Commission’s outside counsel advises the Commission throughout.
Penalties. The Commission may issue fines up to $5,000, as well as ordering education and training.
Staff assistance and budget. The Committee retains legal counsel independent of the City Attorney, as authorized by a Chater amendment in 2004.
SAN JOSE
Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices (Formerly Ethics Commission) | City of San José (sanjoseca.gov)
Creation and authority. The Board is created by ordinance to monitor and enforce campaign and ethics ordinances in Title 12 of the San Jose Municipal Code.
Composition. The Board is composed of five members appointed by a 2/3 vote of the Council, each serving a maximum of two four-year terms. Membership should be representative of the community and have demonstrated familiarity and experience with campaign laws.
Powers and Duties. The Board has subpoena, investigative, and enforcement authority. Monitors compliance with local campaign and ethics ordinances in Title 12 of the San Jose Municipal Code.
Reviews and investigates allegations of violations and makes recommendations for enforcement action.
Makes recommendations to the Council regarding campaign and ethics regulations and policies.
Investigations and Enforcement. The Board issues an RFQ for a neutral Evaluator and/or Investigator in advance of each election cycle. An evaluator must have a legal background and experience in ethics, election, or political law. An investigator must have experience in investigative practices and procedures including skills in obtaining information and facts through interview, questioning, and observation. The investigation procedures applicable to the Evaluator are also applicable to the Investigator.
The statute of limitation for filing a complaint is four years after the alleged violation.
Complaints are filed with the City Clerk, who forwards it to the Evaluator. The Evaluator
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1150 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
performs a preliminary evaluation of every complaint to determine if sufficient cause exists to conduct a full investigation. If the complaint on its face warrants investigation, the Evaluator advises the Board, who schedules a hearing to consider the Evaluator’s report and recommendations. The Board may then direct the Evaluator to conduct an investigation. Following the investigation, the Evaluator advises the Board Chair to set a hearing for submittal and distribution of the Evaluator’s report and recommendations. The respondent may appear before the board and submit a response and evidence. The vote of at least three Board members is required to find a violation has occurred. A respondent may seek juridical review of the Board’s decision in Superior Court.
Penalties. The Board may issue a public statement or reprimand; may require corrective action by a particular deadline; or may impose a penalty up to $5,000 per violation or three times the amount at issue, whichever is greater. At any time, the Evaluator or the Board may refer a complaint and any information gathered to another enforcement agency who may more appropriately resolve the allegations in the complaint.
Staff assistance and budget. The City Attorney’s Office provides advice to the Board on matters unrelated to complaints or on general interpretations of the law, but does not participate in investigations or reviews of complaints.
OAKLAND
City of Oakland | Public Ethics Commission (oaklandca.gov) Creation and authority. Created by Charter Amendment in 1996. The Commission has jurisdiction over local laws governing campaign finance, financial conflicts of interest by public officials, lobbyist registration and reporting, post-governmental employment, misuse of city resources, gifts and honoraria, and public meetings and records.
Composition. Seven member board of volunteer city residents. Three members are appointed by the Mayor, City Attorney and City Auditor, subject to veto by the Council.
Four members are recruited and selected by the Commission itself. Members serve for up to two three-year terms. Members may be removed for cause by the appointing authority, with the concurrence of the Council by Resolution. Members shall reside and be registered to vote in the city, and have limits on their lobbying and political activity while serving on the Commission. Regular public meetings are typically held on the first Monday of the month.
Powers and Duties.
Foster and enforce compliance with laws under their jurisdiction. Conduct audits and investigations, issue subpoenas, enforce fines and penalties, and refer matters to other enforcement agencies.
By affirmative vote of five members, reprimand, censure or impose administrative remedies.
Report on effectiveness of laws and make recommendations. Issue oral advice and written opinions, in consultation with the City Attorney. Act as filing officer.
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1151 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
Educate and promote understanding with laws under their jurisdiction. Set Council compensation as provided for in the Charter.
Investigations and Enforcement. Upon receipt of a formal complaint and determination that the complaint warrants further inquiry, an investigation ensues. After the investigation, Commission staff shall issue a report as to whether there is probable cause a violation occurred. Upon review, the Commission may decide to close the matter, request further investigation, and/or seek a stipulated settlement, or may refer the matter to administrative hearing. The Commission may either sit as a hearing panel or may delegate authority to one or more members, or to an independent hearing officer. The Commission must provide notice to the responding party and may issue subpoenas.
Hearings afford due process to the accused, but are not subject to formal rules of evidence. The Commission’s order following a hearing may determine a violation of law occurred only if the weight of the evidence shows it is more likely than not that a violation occurred. The Commission’s order and findings of fact and conclusions may include orders for corrective, remedial or punitive actions, and any appropriate fines. Any person aggrieved by the action of the hearing officer may seek judicial review.
The Commission may also receive informal complaints, upon which it has no obligation, but retains discretion, to process and review. The Commission also has a procedure for addressing repetitive and unmeritorious complaints.
Penalties. Penalty options include a warning letter; streamlined stipulation for common low-level violations assessing penalties up to $800, and mainline penalties for more serious violations, from $1,000 per violation to $5,000 per violation, or three times the amount at issue, whichever is greater.
Staff assistance and budget. Minimum staffing consists of the following full time positions:
Executive Director, Enforcement Chief, Ethics Investigator, Ethics Analyst I, Ethics Analyst II, Administrative Assistant I, Democracy Dollars Manager and three full-time positions to assist that person. The City Attorney advises the commission, or retains outside counsel in the event of a conflict.
RIVERSIDE
Board of Ethics | City Clerk (riversideca.gov)
Creation and authority. Established by ordinance in 2016. The ordinance sets forth prohibited conduct that may be the subject of a complaint. Only violations of the alleged prohibited conduct in the ordinance shall be grounds for a complaint.
Composition. Nine members appointed by the Mayor and City Council. Regular public meetings are held the first Thursday of the month.
Powers and Duties. Advise and make recommendations to Council on all matters pertaining to the adoption, revision, administration and enforcement of the Code of Ethics and Conduct set forth in the municipal code.
Investigations and Enforcement. Only those who live, work, or attend school in Riverside may bring a complaint, unless the alleged violation took place outside the boundaries of the jurisdiction. Complaining parties must have personally witnessed the alleged violation.
Complaints and evidence shall be filed with the City Clerk within one year of the alleged
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1152 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
violation. Within 20 days of the Clerk deeming the complaint complete, the Clerk shall set the matter for a pre-conference before the Board of Ethics. At the pre-conference, the Board shall review the complaint to determine whether the complaint is compliant with the municipal code, the Board of Ethics shall facilitate settlement discussions between the parties. Both complainant and accused official shall have the opportunity to present evidence. The Board shall determine by majority vote whether the complainant has shown that the evidence, if true, more likely than not shows a potential violation. If the Board so finds, then a hearing panel is selected, and the City Clerk shall set a hearing date within 45 days. The Chair of the hearing panel of the Board of Ethics shall preside over the hearing. No new evidence may be submitted at the formal hearing. The Complainant shall have the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred.
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the City Clerk of a member of the hearing panel shall prepare a statement of findings, which shall be considered by the hearing panel within 30 days after the hearing. A decision of the hearing panel may be appealed to the City Council by either party. If there is no appeal, the decision becomes final and there is no further right to appeal. The City Council will then determine if sanctions should be imposed, if applicable.
Penalties. Upon a finding of the Council that an official violated any provision of prohibited conduct, the Council may impose the following sanctions:
Elected officials: public apology by the official to the complainant; recommendation for training; removal from regional committees; removal from Mayor Pro Tem rotation; public censure; or restriction from traveling to attend meetings or conferences outside city limits.
Appointed officials of Boards and Commissions: Public apology by the official to the complainant; recommendation for training; referral to the Board of Commission of which appointed official is a member for public censure; public censure the Mayor and City Council; removal from chair, vice chair, or other leadership positions; or removal from office as provided by the Charter.
No official who is the complainant or subject of a complaint shall participate in deliberations or decisions concerning sanctions to be imposed for such complaint.
Staff assistance and budget. Unknown.
SACRAMENTO
Filing an Ethics Complaint | City of Sacramento
Creation and authority. Created by the Council by ordinance in 2017. Sac. City Code
2.112. The purpose of the commission is to review and consider complaints against elected and appointed city officials, to ensure those officials are conforming their conduct to the city’s laws and policies. The commission has authority over Section 35 of the Charter (Limitation on Future Employment), Municipal Code Chapter 1.20 (Code of Fair Campaign Practices), Municipal Code Chapter 2.13 (Campaign Contribution Limitations) and 2.14 (Campaign Spending Limitations and Public Campaign Financing), Chapter 2.15 (Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Code), 2.16 (Conflict of Interest), 4.02 (Code of Ethics), 4.04 (Sunshine Ordinance) and Chapter 3 (Conduct of Members) and Rule 6.E (Closed Sessions) of the Council Rules of Procedure.
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1153 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
Composition. Five members, nominated by the personnel and public employees committee and appointed by the Mayor with the concurrence of a majority of the Council.
Members serve four-year terms, and no member shall serve more than two consecutive terms. Members must be residents of the city, and shall have a background in law, ethics, local government, or similar experience. There are limits on commissioners holding elective office during and after their time on the commission. The Commission has a minimum of two meetings per year, and is subject to the Brown Act.
Powers and Duties.
Review, investigate, and consider complaints in areas of their jurisdiction. Enforce administrative penalties for violations.
At least annually report to the City Council regarding activities of the commission, and provide recommendations.
Review contract with the FPPC.
Provide annual input to the City Attorney on the list of law firms used to conduct investigations of sexual harassment claims against city officials. Provide input on the initial selection, retention, and replacement of an evaluator. Act as the screening panel for selection of independent redistricting commission candidates.
Investigations and Enforcement. The Council shall retain a neutral and independent evaluator to review and investigate complaints and make recommendations to the Commission.
Any person may file a complaint with the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall perform an initial review, and shall thereafter (1) refer the complaint to the Independent Evaluator for a preliminary evaluation and notify the Commission of the referral; (2) refer the complaint to another city department or the FPPC or other government agency if the Clerk determines they may more appropriately address the allegations; or (3) dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and notify the Complainant of the dismissal.
Upon receiving a complaint from the City Clerk, the Independent Evaluator shall complete a preliminary evaluation to determine whether sufficient cause exists to conduct a full investigation. If there is sufficient cause, the Independent Evaluator will conduct a formal investigation and prepare a report. Upon receiving the report, the City Clerk will advise the Chairperson and City Attorney, and set a hearing at the earliest practicable date. The report shall be made public, and the respondent has the opportunity to submit a written response.
The hearing shall be open to the public. Each side shall present to the Commission, and California Rules of Evidence do not apply. The Commission may consider any relevant evidence, including hearsay. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission may take one or more of the following actions: (1) pass a motion directly the Independent Evaluator to conduct further investigation and report back; (2) adopt a resolution finding sufficient evidence exists to establish a violation occurred based on a preponderance of the evidence; (3) adopt a resolution finding sufficient evidence does not exist to establish a violation occurred and order the complaint dismissed; (4) pass a motion referring the matter to the FPPC or another governmental agency.
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1154 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
Penalties. Remedies for violations include the following: (1) a finding that mitigating circumstances exist and no further action is warranted; (2) a reprimand; (3) an order that the respondent take corrective action by a certain date; (4) an order issuing a warning letter that best conditions for potential imposition of penalties depending on the future conduct of the respondent; (5) an order imposing an administrative penalty. Penalties for each violation may not exceed $5,000 or in the case of campaign contributions, three times the amount at issue.
Staff assistance and budget: The City Attorney advises the commission on legal matters such as interpretation of ethics laws. The City Attorney does not participate in investigations, but the Commission may consult with the City Attorney about procedure.
The Independent Evaluator is a neutral and independent party retained by the city on the Commission’s behalf review and investigate complaints and give recommendations to the Commission.
CHULA VISTA
Board of Ethics | City of Chula Vista (chulavistaca.gov) Creation and authority. The Board of Ethics was created by the Council by Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 2.28, to exercise authority over the City’s Code of Ethics.
Composition. seven members serving four-year terms. Applications for membership are reviewed by the Ethics Commission and a recommendation is made to Council, who appoints members. The Board meets monthly.
Powers and Duties.
Advises and makes recommendations to the Council on all matters related to potential unethical conduct and make recommendations to the Council for implementation of the code of ethics.
Receives and initiates complaints of violation of city’s Code of Ethics. investigates violations and transmits findings to the appropriate authority or city officer Serves as a hearing body for violations of the code of ethics. Renders advisory opinions or interpretations with respect to applications of the Code. Proposes revisions to the Code to ensure its continuing pertinence and effectiveness. Participate in the selection and nomination members to the Board of Ethics.
Investigations and Enforcement. If an individual board member refers a matter for investigation, it is assigned to a panel attorney, who conducts an investigation as to whether probable cause exists. If the attorney determines there is probable cause, the attorney presents its case to the board. If the board finds there is probable cause, it assigns the case to another panel attorney for investigation and submission to the board for a full hearing.
If a member of the public makes a complaint, it must be made within 90 days of the occurrence. The Board may refer the matter to another enforcement agency, or may perform a prima facie review to determine if the complaint complies with the minimum requirements for complaints. The board may then perform an investigation, either through
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1155 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
an ad hoc subcommittee comprised of one to three board members, or by hiring an outside investigator. The complaint then proceeds to a probable cause hearing, and if cause is found, to a full hearing on the merits. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. If the board makes a finding of misconduct, that finding may not be changed by the city Council. Only police and firefighters, granted appeal rights under state law, may appeal the decision to the Council.
Penalties. A declaration of misconduct may contain a recommendation of sanctions against the city official found to have engaged in misconduct, including, but not limited to, remedial actions to prevent future misconduct, reprimand, censure, or removal from office.
SAN FRANCISCO
San Francisco Ethics Commission
Creation and Authority. Created directly by city voters through the passage of Proposition K in 1993. The powers and duties of the Ethics Commission are governed by Charter Sections 15.100, et seq., and Appendix C, Sections C3.699-10-C3.699-16. The Commission has jurisdiction over the local campaign finance reform ordinance; campaign and government conduct code; prohibition of false endorsement in campaign literature ordinance; lobbyist registration ordinance; sunshine ordinance (partial).
Composition. Five members, one each appointed by the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, the Assessor-Recorder, the City Attorney, and the District Attorney. Members serve sixyear terms. The Mayor’s appointee must have background in public information and public meetings; assessor’s appointee must have background in campaign finance; city attorney’s appointee must have background in governmental ethics, and other two appointees shall be broadly representative of the general public.
Powers and Duties. The Commission has subpoena, investigative, and enforcement authority. Charter Appendix C3.699-11
Conduct investigations and enforcement proceedings for alleged violations of the charter and city ordinances related to campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts of interest and governmental ethics.
Authorized to hold hearings to determine whether an elective or appointed city officer warrants suspension or removal for acts of official misconduct. Serves as filing officer for public disclosure statements. Audit campaign statements and other relevant documents and investigate alleged violations of state law, the charter, and city ordinances relating to campaign finance, government ethics, and conflicts of interest, and to report findings to the District Attorney.
Make recommendations to the BOS regarding legislation and charter amendments related to government ethics.
Maintain a whistleblower hotline.
Provide education and training.
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
Issue opinions and advice to any person requesting an opinion with respect to that person’s duties under the provisions of the charter or any ordinance related to campaign finance, conflicts of interest, lobbying, or governmental ethics. The opinion shall be submitted to the City Attorney and District Attorney, who shall advise whether they concur or disagree, and the reason for any disagreement.
Investigations and Enforcement:
Identifies, investigates, and remedies unlawful conduct within the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction. May include imposition of monetary penalties levied by the five member ethics commission.
The commission may conduct investigations of alleged violation of the charter and city ordinances related to campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and governmental ethics. If the commission receives a sworn complaint from any person, or on its own initiative believes a violation has occurred, the complaint is immediately forwarded to the City Attorney and District Attorney. Within 10 days, The City Attorney or District Attorney shall inform the commission whether they intend to pursue an investigation. The commission may perform its own investigation if it believes there is sufficient cause to do so. Within 14 days, the commission shall notify the complainant of the action to be taken on the complaint, if any. Investigations and records shall be confidential. The accused shall be given notice of the charges against them, and shall have the right to appear at the hearing to determine whether probable cause exists for believing the person committed a violation. Once the Commission determines there is probable cause that a violation occurred, it may hold a public hearing. If the commission determines based on substantial evidence presented at the hearing that a violation has occurred, penalties may be imposed.
Penalties: direction to cease and desist; direct filing of any reports required by law; monetary penalties payable to the general fund of up to $5,000 per violation or 3x the amount at issue; recommend removal from office.
Charter 15.105: Suspension and Removal. Provides that elective or appointed officers are subject to suspension and removal for official misconduct, which includes any wrongful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of their office, willful in character, including any failure, refusal or neglect of an officer to perform any duty required by law, or conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith, and right action impliedly required of public officers, and including violation of specific conflict of interest or governmental ethics laws. When any city law provides that a violation constitutes is deemed official misconduct, the conduct is covered and the person may be subjected to discipline or removal from office.
Process: Mayor has power to suspend and appoint qualified person to the office during period of suspension. Upon suspension, Mayor must immediately notify the Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors the cause of the suspension and written charges shall be provided to the Commission, BOS, and accused. The accused shall have the right to appear with counsel and defend themselves before the Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission shall hold a hearing within 5 days of the filing of written charges. After hearing, the Commission shall transmit the full record of the hearing to the BOS with a recommendation as to whether charges should be sustained. If, upon 3/4 vote of the BOS the charges are sustained, the
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution)
suspended officer shall be removed from office. If not sustained or not acted on within 30 days, the suspended officer shall be reinstated.
Staff assistance and budget: In FY22 the Ethics Commission had a total operating budget of $6.55 million to fund programming and staffing.
BERKELEY
Fair Campaign Practices Commission | City of Berkeley (berkeleyca.gov) Creation and authority. The Commission was formed by ordinance to ensure monies received or spent in municipal campaigns are fully disclosed in accordance with the Berkeley Elections Reform Act.
Composition. The Commission has nine members, and members serve for the same term as the councilmember appointing them. Members must be registered voters in Berkeley and shall not seek or hold office or contribute to any campaign while on the commission.
Meetings are once a month, and open to the public.
Powers and Duties.
Prescribe forms and reports, statements, notices and other documents required by law.
Prepare and publish materials and instructions setting forth methods of bookkeeping and preservation of records to facilitate compliance with and enforcement of the law Provide assistance to agencies and public officials in administering the provisions of the law.
Determine whether required documents have been filed, and, if so, whether they conform to the law.
Issue advisory opinions upon request.
Investigate violations, and subpoena documents and witnesses.
Investigations and Enforcement. After the commission determines there is probable cause for believing a provision of the Elections Reform Act has been violated, it may hold a hearing to determine if the violation has occurred, and may determine an appropriate remedy if violation is found. Ay person may seek judicial review of any action of the commission.
Penalties. The commission may order violators: (1) cease and desist violations; (2) file any reports and statements or other documents or information legally required; (3) pay a monetary penalty up to $1,000 per violation, or up to the amount f the value of the unlawful contribution, whichever is greater.
Staff assistance and budget. Unknown.
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: Memorandum re Ethics Commission (6678 : Council Ethics Resolution) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 22, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request by Councilmember Oscar de la Torre that the City Council consider allocating $10,000 from the Council Discretionary funds to the Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) in support of the Santa Monica High School student group Legado Latino. This funding will provide scholarships and support culturally relevant programming that promotes academic excellence while honoring and celebrating the students’ vibrant cultural heritage.
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Discretionary Funds as of 10.16.24
B. Written Comments
16.A
Packet Pg. 1159
Council Discretionary Funds
As of 10/16/24
FY 2023-24 - Status of Unspent Funds
Description Amount Notes
Unspent, committed funds from prior year $ 8,578.66 programmed but not spent yet Santa Monica Pony League to repair scoreboard at Los Amigos Park $ (5,000.00) Support City's public libraries (2,986.19)
Total FY 2023-24 unspent, uncommitted funds $ 592.47 Not needed for hosting Sister City Mazatlan FY 2024-25 - New Appropriation and allocations
Description Amount Programmed Date
FY 2024-25 - New Appropriation 127,653.00 Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Ocean Park Association for Annual 4th of July Parade (15,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Business Improvement District (BID) Annual Support (29,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Pico Youth and Family Center (PYFC) Car Show (6,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Westside Coalition for Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration (9,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Santa Monica High School Grad Nite (20,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Provide funds to assist in covering Samohi Latino Graduation event expenses (6,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24
Provide funds to cover costs of the Memorial Day event (5,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Sponsor Pride activities throughout the City (10,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Sponsor programming for Roll @ Santa Monica (2,500.00) Council Meeting, 9/24/24, item 16C Total Programmed $ 25,153.00
Unprogrammed Balance Available $ 25,745.47
10/16/2024
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: Discretionary Funds as of 10.16.24 (6735 : Legado Latino) 1 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Items 16A & 16B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I’d like this email to serve as a reminder that city council meetings are not campaign events.
You were elected to be in the position that you are in, and you are there to make informed decisions that are in the best interest of the community.
While it has been shown time and time again that this isn’t a concern for some of you, your community would still appreciate you making ethical decisions.
Using one’s political power to promote hate is just not acceptable and does not reflect the values of this city.Yet, that is sadly what council member Oscar de la Torre has been doing.
Funneling $10k of these very limited funds towards a conference that does not need the sponsorship, simply to try to cover up one's own antisemitic remarks, is more damaging than anything.
Weaponizing students who will have to “fight” for the remainder of your discretionary funds is another example of a council member not being truly thoughtful about the impacts of their decisions on the community as a whole, and using their power to divide people.
I don’t support these items because they are unfortunately clearly rooted in bad faith.
If you’re making decisions that are meant to be in your own (or your fellow campaigning buddy’s) interest, you’re in the wrong place and should resign.
Caro Vilain, 90404
Item 16-A
October 22, 2024
Item 16-A
October 22, 2024
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1161 Attachment: Written Comments (6735 : Legado Latino) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 22, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request by Councilmember Oscar de la Torre that the City Council, which stands united against hate, racism, religious intolerance, Islamophobia, and antisemitism, consider 1) directing the City Manager to discuss with the Superintendent of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) the use of the 1991 Hate Crime letter as a tool to create awareness and educate young people on the impact of hate crimes; and 2) allocate $2,500 from Council Discretionary Funds to sponsor the '2024 Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism: Directing Change from City Hall' conference, hosted by the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), a project of the Combat Antisemitism Foundation, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
The event, chaired by Beverly Hills Mayor Lester Friedman, will take place in Beverly Hills from December 11 to 13, 2024, at the Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts and the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. The summit will unite leaders, policymakers, and advocates from across the United States and Canada in a collective effort to combat antisemitism and promote a society of tolerance and respect. Antisemitism is an urgent and growing threat that endangers not only Jewish communities but also the fundamental values of our diverse and democratic society. City mayors and city council members have a unique ability to proactively confront Jew-hatred at the local level, where it is most acutely felt. More information contact the 2024 Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism at
https://mayors.combatantisemitism.org/summit (register to attend, donations/sponsorship, schedule of events) and the US Conference of Mayors website (hosting organization) at
https://www.usmayors.org/programs/mayors-and-business-leaders-center-forcompassionate-and-equitable-cities/combating-antisemitism/
16.B
Packet Pg. 1162
2 of 2
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Discretionary Funds as of 10.16.24
B. 1991 Hate Letter-SAMOHII
C. 2024 Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism
D. US Conference of Mayors website (hosting organization) E. Written Comments
16.B
Packet Pg. 1163
Council Discretionary Funds
As of 10/16/24
FY 2023-24 - Status of Unspent Funds
Description Amount Notes
Unspent, committed funds from prior year $ 8,578.66 programmed but not spent yet Santa Monica Pony League to repair scoreboard at Los Amigos Park $ (5,000.00) Support City's public libraries (2,986.19)
Total FY 2023-24 unspent, uncommitted funds $ 592.47 Not needed for hosting Sister City Mazatlan FY 2024-25 - New Appropriation and allocations
Description Amount Programmed Date
FY 2024-25 - New Appropriation 127,653.00 Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Ocean Park Association for Annual 4th of July Parade (15,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Business Improvement District (BID) Annual Support (29,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Pico Youth and Family Center (PYFC) Car Show (6,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Westside Coalition for Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration (9,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Santa Monica High School Grad Nite (20,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Provide funds to assist in covering Samohi Latino Graduation event expenses (6,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24
Provide funds to cover costs of the Memorial Day event (5,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Sponsor Pride activities throughout the City (10,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Sponsor programming for Roll @ Santa Monica (2,500.00) Council Meeting, 9/24/24, item 16C Total Programmed $ 25,153.00
Unprogrammed Balance Available $ 25,745.47
10/16/2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: Discretionary Funds as of 10.16.24 (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism)
16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: 1991 Hate Letter-SAMOHII (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 4 David Yakobson
From: Debbie Paperman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 5:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra
Subject: Public Comment about Antisemitism allegations
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica and a board member of Democrats for Israel, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding allegations against Councilmember Oscar de la Torre. It has been reported that he made antisemitic remarks, suggesting the school board was "controlled by Jews," which perpetuates harmful stereotypes.This incident is just one of many that highlight a troubling pattern of antisemitism that must be addressed. Despite the seriousness of these allegations, there has been a noticeable silence from our city council members. Antisemitism is a serious issue that affects not only the Jewish community but the entire fabric of our diverse society. It is imperative that our elected officials take a clear and public stance against any form of hate speech or discrimination.I urge the council to address this matter with the seriousness it deserves. Public accountability and transparency are crucial in maintaining trust within our community. I respectfully request that the council members publicly condemn any antisemitic remarks and take appropriate actions to ensure that such behavior is not tolerated in our city.Thank you for your attention to this important issue. I look forward to seeing proactive steps taken by our council to uphold the values of inclusivity and respect for all residents of Santa Monica.Sincerely,Debbie Paperman Santa Monica Resident
Board Member, Democrats for Israel
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1166 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 10:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: item 16B Timeline of a scandal : Accusations of anti-semitism and racism against Councilmember Oscar de la Torre
Attachments: oscar othering dan and natalya.mp4
EXTERNAL
As an addendum to my other written comment, below is a recap of events on the accusations of antisemitism and racism against Oscar, as well as recent bigoted remarks he made on video in a public meeting, up through this morning published in Santa Monica Next today. https://santamonicanext.org/2024/10/timeline-of-a-scandal-accusations-of-anti-semitism-and-racismagainst-councilmember-oscar-de-la-torre Tonight, the City Council will hear an item in “Councilmember Discussion Items” introduced by Oscar de la Torre that will likely cause extended public comment about the scandal that has been raging over antisemitic remarks allegedly made by de la Torre in 2019 when he was a member of the Santa MonicaMalibu Unified School District Board of Education.
Despite this scandal being an issue in the campaign, not much has been said about it in the local press other than in the “letters section” and articles here at Next. For anyone just joining the discussion, here’s a timeline of what’s been happening in the last month.
On September 24, Jason Mastbaum published a piece in Santa Monica Next based on a staff report presented to the City Council in 2013 that recommended that the city stop funding the Pico Youth and Family Center. The report contained letters from four board members of the PYFC that resigned in protest of what they said was racist and abusive behavior. There was also a letter from the head of the local NAACP chapter asking the city to cease funding and substantiating the accusations of racism and antisemitism made by the resigning board members.
While the debate over funding PYFC was covered in the Daily Press, there was no mention of de la Torre’s alleged behavior. The piece focused on fiscal matters, meaning this is the first time these accusations were reported on.
Later that night, Mastbaum confronted de la Torre during public comment at the City Council meeting. “…here’s just a sampling of quotes about one of our city council members from some of his former colleagues contained in the city staff report for consideration by the community,” stated Mastbaum before reading portions of the resignation letters from the 2013 report.
De la Torre responded with a forceful defense of his work at PYFC and accused Mastbaum of bringing up this old report because of the upcoming election. “…for you to come up here and speak on something Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 2 that’s old history, and to try to make it sound like I’m anti Jewish…I mean, that’s what you’re trying to allude to in your comments. That’s despicable,” de la Torre responded.
The full statement by Mastbaum and de la Torre was transcribed and posted at Next on September 26.
On October 7, in a Northeast Neighbors meeting, de la Torre singles out city council candidates Dan Hall and Natalya Zernitskaya as newcomers to Santa Monica politics, claiming Hall has basically just arrived and says of Zernitskaya, “Natalya…I can’t even pronounce her last name because I haven’t seen her long enough, to know who she really is. I don’t even know where she came from. <see attached video of de la Torre at Northeast Neighbors meeting, or youtube link here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0V1hslzWm4>
“Some of these folks. They just come into our community, and we don’t know who really they are, but it looks like they were handpicked. They’re there to follow an agenda.” On October 8, Mastbaum sent in his September 24 article, which had not been posted in time for the written public comment cutoff time for that day’s city council meeting, as written public comment for the October 8th council meeting. De la Torre, who has not publicly denied the contents of the 2013 city staff PYFC report, sent a private denial to Mastbaum at 1:20 AM on the morning of October 9th, while the October 8th council meeting still had about an hour and a half left to go. He also included “The negativity you focus on can affect your health. Try being more positive.” On October 11, the Santa Monica Daily Press published a letter from Jon Kean stating that on August 9, 2019 de la Torre (then a member of the school board) said, “The biggest problem with the school board is that it’s run by the Jews.” Kean goes on to explain that he didn’t speak up then because in private conversations with de la Torre, he sensed growth and he was concerned that as Councilmember he would seek revenge against Kean and thus the school district should he speak out. However, after statements made by de la Torre during debate on a cease-fire resolution between Israel and Palestinians and the back and forth between him and Mastbaum, he had to speak up. “For me, I cannot ignore what I have experienced and felt that if I failed to speak up before this important election, I would have failed the Jewish people once again. That was a bridge too far for me to stay silent any longer,” he concluded.
On October 12, de la Torre responded with a letter in the Daily Press forcefully both denying the allegation and claiming that Kean was just playing politics because Kean and the slate of candidates opposing de la Torre are endorsed by the same political groups. He also says that Kean could be motivated by the desire for payback himself because of de la Torre’s advocacy for district based elections for SMMUSD that would change the makeup of the elected board on which Kean serves.
He wrote, “After five years, why is this being presented to the public for the first time? The alleged comment is so offensive that Mr. Kean would have had a moral and ethical duty to publicly repudiate anyone for making such a comment when it allegedly occurred. No elected official should get a pass for hate of any kind.”
On October 16, a second SMMUSD Board of Education Member was published in a letter in the Daily Press corroborating and expanding on Kean’s accusation. Dr. Richard Amir Tahvildaran-Jesswein, who Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1168 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 3 was board president in 2019, gave details of a conversation he had with a government improvement consultant who met individually with each school board member. “As Board President at the time, I was later informed by the facilitator Ms Maniker, who is Jewish, she could no longer continue her work with the Board due to antisemitic comments made during her meeting with de la Torre. According to her, de la Torre remarked that the Board was “controlled by Jews,” Tahvildaran-Jesswein wrote.
Also on October 16, Santa Monica Forward, a progressive political group in the city, launched an online petition calling for de la Torre to resign in light of the scandal. The petition has 130 signatures as of the writing of this story.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Image from Santa Monica Forward petition.
On October 17, the agenda for tonight’s City Council meeting was posted, and it had an interesting agenda item that appears to be in response to the scandal by de la Torre. Item 16 B (Agenda, for links to supporting documents), uses a lot of words to do two things should the Council pass it. First, it directs the city manager to ask SMMUSD Superintendent to use “the 1991 Hate Crime Letter” that de la Torre received in response to student activism as a learning tool to teach about racism. The second is to direct the city to spend $2,500 to sponsor a national conference against anti-semitism that will be in Beverly Hills in December.
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 4 Also on October 17, Mastbaum reached out to several of the PYFC board members who resigned in 2012 to see if they had any comment on Oscar’s attempt to deny the contents of the staff report or the back and forth in the Daily Press between Kean, de la Torre, and Tahvildaran-Jesswein. One, Jill Moniz, responded regarding de la Torre’s October 9 comment to Mastbaum about “the negativity you focus on can affect your health”, saying, “Sounds like the same old Oscar making veiled threats about people’s health when they raise concerns about the way he acts with impunity.” On October 18, Rev. Jim Conn weighed in with another letter to the Daily Press. Conn, a former mayor and retired Methodist Minister, took de la Torre to task. “That evil out of his mouth was reported by two current and upstanding members of the school board in these pages. I was particularly chagrined because I endorsed his election to the school board. In fact we have worked together and advocated together from time to time over the past several decades. I expected more of him.” Over the weekend, Mayor Phil Brock, who is running with de la Torre on a slate for re-election to the City Council was confronted in a Nextdoor group about the accusations against de la Torre. We copied his responses to the accusations below.
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 5 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 6 In response to the accusations made by Kean and Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Brock defended de la Torre’s character before saying the two were playing politics.
If I had evidence that Oscar was anti-semitic, I would take action. All that has been published has been two reports by two enemies of his, who also serve on the SMMUSD school board. Neither person was there during the supposed incident, they are relying on hearsay. Oscar is a person who has stood for those who otherwise had no representation for decades, including the diverse populations and those who were ignored by society. I have known Oscar for almost two decades, and I have never heard any words from him that are anti semitic. If there is firm evidence, let it be published. The incident supposedly occurred in 2019. It was not broadcast before or even before (sic) the 2020 election cycle. It seemed quite opportune for this supposed information to come out three weeks before the 2024 election.
As for the report by Mastbaum on 2013, Brock said the accusations occurred so long ago they were “old news:”
I believe this was reported in the City Council report at the time, it’s old news that was settled within Oscar’s board. It occurred when the city council was trying to defund the PICO Youth and Family Center, a nonprofit that Oscar was president and founder of.
On October 21, Vivian Rothstein wrote to Next on de la Torre’s comments about Jewish city council candidate Natalya Zernitskaya, “The words were said in a public neighborhood meeting, slurring the background of Council candidate Natalya Zernitskaya, an American citizen and Jewish refugee from Belarus.”
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 7 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 10:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: item 16B
EXTERNAL
I'm writing to oppose Oscar's offensive attempt to buy his way out of the mountain of credible evidence of his history of antisemitism using public money.
To recap, we currently have eight people and counting who have made credible accusations against Oscar regarding antisemitism, racism, and violent threats against those who oppose him. Five of them told city council this--four members of his charity board and the head of the local NAACP chapter. Two have served on the school board with Oscar and another is a school board consultant who resigned from that job because of how upset she was by Oscar saying to her that "The biggest problem with the school board is that it’s run by the Jews".
Oscar has taken to the press to attack Jon Kean's credibility regarding this 2019 statement, but he has not publicly denied the contents of the 2013 PYFC staff report--in his point of personal following my reading those quotes into the public record, there was no denial of anything in the report. Only an absurd claim that he can't be antisemitic because a rich Jewish woman once gave him a bunch of money. He apparently also thinks that giving $2,500 of city to a well-funded antisemitism conference and the fact that he suffered from a hate crime once in 1991 means that he cannot himself be hateful in 2012 or 2019 or 2024.
Oscar did however feel compelled to try to deny the claims in the 2013 staff report to me privately at 1:20 in the morning on October 9, while the October 8 council meeting still had another hour and a half left to go. I have included this email below. I shared these comments with several of the PYFC board members who resigned in 2012, one of whom quickly responded "Sounds like the same old Oscar making veiled threats about people's health when they raise concerns about the way he acts with impunity".
Oscar resorting to character assassination and threats is consistent with everything that was said about Oscar in 2012, is consistent with why Jon and Richard said they haven't spoken up about this earlier, and is the mark of someone who knows he's been caught. Disturbingly, other city councilmembers have joined with Oscar on this atrocious response to his being found out. Phil for instance has taken to trying to disparage this as "old news" and "suspiciously timed" on NextDoor. I wonder if Phil was saying that E.
Jean Carroll shouldn't have waited 25 years to sue Donald Trump for raping her.
Meanwhile, Oscar has made a number of hateful claims on video and within the last two years, one as recently as two weeks ago! These include othering Dan Hall and Natalya Zernitskaya (while Phil sits by silently). Dan and Natalya are LGBQT+ and Natalya is Jewish, and he singles them out to say they're carpetbaggers here to take over the city for "special interests". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0V1hslzWm4
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1173 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 8 And at the August 23, 2022 city council meeting, Oscar said that being transgender shouldn't be a protected class because you can't hide if you're black or Latino, but your landlord can't know you're transgender unless they go snooping in your closet and find a dress (a real WTF moment in city council history). Then last year Oscar tried to get in on trans panic fearmongering over the gender neutral bathrooms item, saying it was a potential threat to public safety.
Plus, guess what? The head of the $500k Douglas Emmett independent expenditure committee understood loud and clear where Oscar stands on trans issues! He thinks it's good that Oscar didn't want "transgender bathrooms on public beaches in SM so kids are safe".
Earlier this year seven councilmembers voted to declare that Santa Monica stands united against hate.
We should all be concerned one of them knew he could not live up to that pledge at the time he voted for it, and that other councilmembers are joining him in dismissing and attacking those speaking up against it instead of engaging honestly with this long list of credible allegations and video recorded behavior. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: item in general public comment 10/8/2024 "And when Oscar verbally insulted several of our Board members with racial, religious and / or ethnic slurs, Oscar demonstrated that the right to have Social Justice does not apply to everyone."
To: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Jason:
These allegations never had an impact because they were false and unbelievable by anyone that knows me. The negativity you focus on can affect your health. Try being more positive.
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 9 Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 1 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Items 16A & 16B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I’d like this email to serve as a reminder that city council meetings are not campaign events.
You were elected to be in the position that you are in, and you are there to make informed decisions that are in the best interest of the community.
While it has been shown time and time again that this isn’t a concern for some of you, your community would still appreciate you making ethical decisions.
Using one’s political power to promote hate is just not acceptable and does not reflect the values of this city.Yet, that is sadly what council member Oscar de la Torre has been doing.
Funneling $10k of these very limited funds towards a conference that does not need the sponsorship, simply to try to cover up one's own antisemitic remarks, is more damaging than anything.
Weaponizing students who will have to “fight” for the remainder of your discretionary funds is another example of a council member not being truly thoughtful about the impacts of their decisions on the community as a whole, and using their power to divide people.
I don’t support these items because they are unfortunately clearly rooted in bad faith.
If you’re making decisions that are meant to be in your own (or your fellow campaigning buddy’s) interest, you’re in the wrong place and should resign.
Caro Vilain, 90404
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 1 David Yakobson
From: Kevin McKeown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 8:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-B
EXTERNAL
We now have three separate members of the Board of Education sharing with us what appear to be independent recollections of a shockingly hurtful statement by Oscar de la Torre: "“The biggest problem with the school board is that it’s run by the Jews.”
May I suggest that some of the energy and resources considered for item 16-B be directed toward resolving this conflict here in our own community?
I realize how difficult it is to confront someone with whom you share the Council dais. You may wish to appear collegial, but you shouldn’t wish to appear complicit.
Kevin McKeown
————————————
K e v I n M c K e o w n
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mckeown.net__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!u1oiJTg7aA9P9WCo8ROP4uKJT plCKxRfcxSDRbmkVShUvaGjut3pkNOOyuIMXSpToz8F3JRUxvmF9YMN2OqphYnFqXc$ Choose to be conscious
————————————
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) 1 David Yakobson
From: laurie lieberman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 4:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox
Subject: Letter on Item 16-B
Attachments: LL Letter on Item 16-B_October 22 CC agenda.Final.pdf
EXTERNAL
Please note: This is intended to replace an earlier email that mis-identified the communication as pertaining to Item 16-A.
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) Re: Item 16-B
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to support the City Council sponsorship of the 2024 Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism. I fully support the City Council’s participation in events and educational activities that are intended to combat all forms of hate and prejudice in thoughtful ways, including antisemitism.
However, agendizing this item does not exonerate my former School Board colleague, Oscar de la Torre, from his offensive antisemitic statement that has now been shared publicly by School Board member Jon Kean and corroborated by School Board member Richard TahvildaranJesswein. I’d like to share my account of the incident they have described in letters to the Santa Monica Daily Press.
During the summer of 2019, the School Board hired a consultant to facilitate and improve Board member effectiveness/communication/teamwork. The consultant’s first step was to interview each Board member individually. I was the Board member who met with the consultant following then Board member Oscar de la Torre.
When I walked into the room to meet the consultant (who I had never met before), she was extremely flustered. She apologized and acknowledged that she was very shaken. She said that she would never ordinarily share what was expressed in another Board member’s interview, but she felt compelled to share with me what the previous Board member had said. He had told her that the biggest challenge the School Board faced was that it was run by the Jews. I do not recall whether she named Oscar; she didn’t have to since he was the person scheduled to be interviewed immediately before me. As I recall, I went immediately to look for our thenSuperintendent, Dr. Ben Drati, to share what I had just heard. I also called Richard TahvildaranJesswein and Jon Kean that afternoon, since they were President and Vice President of the School Board, respectively.
I subsequently learned that Dr. Drati, Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein and Jon Kean had all spoken with Oscar de la Torre about his antisemitic statement, which he did not deny making.
Oscar de la Torre’s now infamous statement, “the biggest problem with the School Board is that it’s run by the Jews,” cannot be erased by a 16 Item, especially since he now claims that he never uttered these hurtful and disgusting words.
With respect to the other request addressed in this16 item, the attached 1991 letter is utterly repulsive. It is a loathsome example of “hate” speech. I believe that the Santa Monica Police Department has investigated the circumstances surrounding it and has never been able to identify the authors. I can only imagine how this letter made Oscar de la Torre feel in 1991, then a young man who had recently served as student body president at Santa Monica High School.
Councilmember de la Torre, who has a personal relationship with the Superintendent, should share the letter with him if he has not done so already along with any suggestions he would like to make. The City Council, however, should not be giving direction to the school district about school curriculum.
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) Like the City Council, the SMMUSD stands united against hate, racism, religious intolerance, Islamophobia and antisemitism. As an educational institution, we deeply understand how harmful incidents like these can be on an individual level, within a school system, and on a societal level. We are committed to confronting, preventing and educating students about the harm caused by hate and prejudice. We would be more than willing to describe the SMMUSD’s robust approach to furthering this commitment in our schools at the convenience of the City Council.
In closing, I feel compelled to share a final observation about this item. We should all be united against hate and prejudice in any form. Count me in. But the fact that Councilmember de la Torre was harmed by hateful speech himself in 1991 and now seeks to promote a conference on antisemitism does not excuse his recent denial of the antisemitic statement he made in 2019, which he did not deny when confronted by his School Board colleagues shortly after he made the statement. The path to redemption and recovery begins with telling the truth.
Sincerely,
Laurie Lieberman
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
Item 16-B
October 22, 2024
16.B.e
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6736 : United Against Hate & Antisemitism) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 22, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Mayor Brock that the City Manager return to the City Council with the resources needed, tradeoffs and budget reallocations necessary to address the City’s growing backlog of damaged street and pedestrian pathway lights. The current backlog consists of approximately 270 street and pedestrian pathway lights. The City Manager is being asked to return to the City Council as soon as possible as this is a matter of public safety.
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
16.C
Packet Pg. 1181
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 22, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: In response to concerns raised by residents regarding privacy and safety, request by Councilmember Parra and Mayor Brock to direct the City Manager and City Attorney to begin the process of amending the Zoning Ordinance to increase heights in the front yard setback in R2, R3, and R4 zone districts, with particular consideration for the appropriateness of 60 inches in height, with 50% transparency for walls and fences above 42 inches in height within the context of crime prevention principles; address measurements that may include retaining walls; and suspend enforcement and pending applications until the ordinance becomes effective in R2, R3, and R4 for those that would comply with that standard. Given the considerable amount of work that has been performed to date on this issue, the City Attorney and City Manager are being asked to return to City Council with a recommendation in 90 days or as soon as possible thereafter. The City Attorney and City Manager are further directed to immediately initiate community engagement on this matter to be included in the recommendation to City Council.
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
16.D
Packet Pg. 1182
1 David Yakobson
From: Brian Stedge-Stroud <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16D & E
EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to support my neighbors on 18th Street who have recently been unfairly fined for fence and hedge heights. These longtime residents missed the opportunity to grandfather their fences in 2007 for several different reasons.
I want to express my sincere gratitude for the work Councilmember Parra and Mayor Brock have put into finding a creative solution to this unique issue.
Would reopening the grandfather exemption for families that could demonstrate the walls were built before 2007 be difficult?
Please support a pathway forward that doesn’t unfairly punish longtime residents who missed the grandfather exemption.
Brian Stedge-Stroud
90404
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: Written Comments (6738 : Amending the Zoning Ordinance to increase heights in the front yard setback in R2, R3, and R4 zone) 1 David Yakobson
From: Steven Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 8:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete
Cc: David White; [email protected]; Emily Arms
Subject: Agenda Items 16.D and 16.E
EXTERNAL
Esteemed Council Members,
I am writing in support 16.D and 16.E, not only because I support privacy and security for legacy properties in increasingly dense/gentrified R2, R3, and R4 zoned districts, but also because I am appalled at the selective and unequal enforcement the City applies across the neighborhoods.
Within my own 1-block radius in Sunset Park, I see multiple residences that laughably flaunt the current hedge and fence height regulations. (Pictured Below)
I could drive a few blocks more and document dozens of hedge and fence scofflaws, but because I live South of Pico, apparently there is no effective enforcement. (North of Montana is an even bigger joke.) Specifically, I have one Sunset Park neighbor who was reported to Code Enforcement for his massive 40- foot hedge that blocked the neighborhood view of the SMC fireworks -- yes, blocking half of the night sky when looking from across the street. After months of delay and multiple follow-ups with Code Enforcement, eventually he topped his frontage, but still was not in compliance by a wide margin. What are even the consequences of violating the current code? Apparently none, or at least no follow-up to ensure compliance in Sunset Park.
So, why are our neighbors in the historically diverse Pico Neighborhood being targeted for enforcement, such as on 18th street?
My understanding and personal experience is that the City practices selective enforcement based on individual complaints. That practice invites abuse and unequal application of the law and, in the case of 18th street, potential discrimination against legacy minority families in the neighborhood.
As an aside, the recent petty targeting of Councilmember de la Torre's fence situation seems to prove the point that historically diverse neighborhoods are the only populations that bear the scrutiny and wrath of code enforcement, when weaponized by someone with a grudge.
If the current hedge and fence code cannot be enforced equally and strictly across the City, then the code should be amended to match the legacy realities of our neighborhoods, or at the very least deprioritize enforcement in favor of other more important quality of life issues for Santa Monica residents (and not be solely responsive to personal vendettas).
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: Written Comments (6738 : Amending the Zoning Ordinance to increase heights in the front yard setback in R2, R3, and R4 zone) 2 This is why I support Council approving for advancement Items 16.D and 16.E Thank you.
* * * * * * * * * *
Steven Johnson
Sunset Park Resident
(310) 429-0475
Cedar St., east of 17th
Maple St., east of 17th
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: Written Comments (6738 : Amending the Zoning Ordinance to increase heights in the front yard setback in R2, R3, and R4 zone) 3 Pine St., east of 17th
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: Written Comments (6738 : Amending the Zoning Ordinance to increase heights in the front yard setback in R2, R3, and R4 zone) 4 Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: Written Comments (6738 : Amending the Zoning Ordinance to increase heights in the front yard setback in R2, R3, and R4 zone) 5 David Yakobson
From: Carolyn Hooks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 7:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16D. and 16. E
Attachments: Agenda Items 16.D and 16.E.pdf
EXTERNAL
Please find attached letter regarding agenda items 16.D and 16.E Thank you
18th street Homeowner
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: Written Comments (6738 : Amending the Zoning Ordinance to increase heights in the front yard setback in R2, R3, and R4 zone) Regarding Agenda Items 16. D And 16. E
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing this letter as homeowners on 18th Street in Santa Monica. This property has been in our family for almost 100 years, first being purchased by our grandparents.
We received a citation from code enforcement on 12/12/2023 stating we had 3 violations on our property.
1) SMMC 9.48.010 – Compliance with Article 9
2) SMMC 9.21.050 – Over height, hedge, wall, or fence
3) SMMC 9.21.050 – Hazardous Visual Obstructions
From what we understand, someone bought the home on the corner lot on the south/west side of 18th and Delaware and requested a permit for a 6 – 7-foot concrete wall around the property and was denied. He tried to appeal this decision and was denied again. Since our wonderful neighbor was not given his way, he decided to file complaints against everyone on the block (18th street between Pico and Delaware). Each homeowner was cited for various violations, mostly hedges and picket fences being 2 -3 inches higher than the code allows.
We are trying to understand why this person bought a home in an area where he doesn’t feel safe. In his requests I found comments of wanting this 6 – 7-foot concrete wall to protect him from the gang violence and drug trafficking among other things. I live on the same block, several houses down from him and have not witnessed anything like this.
Though we are aware of the increased amount of theft and violence occurring throughout the City of Santa Monica, and want everyone to be safe, does a 6-7 feet wall really ensure safety and why has his issue now become an issue for homeowners that have lived on the block for many generations.
Since receiving the citation, we have removed the hedges from our lot and other homeowners have trimmed and removed hedges and bushes to comply with the code.
Regarding the wall on our driveway, this wall has been there for over 50 years. It looks identical to the majority of walls in the Pico Neighborhood and were all built by the same man. (we know this because he was a homeowner on 18th street). There has never been an accident on our property due to the wall separating our property from the apartment building next door but now it is a “Hazardous Visual Obstruction” and needs to be modified.
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Written Comments (6738 : Amending the Zoning Ordinance to increase heights in the front yard setback in R2, R3, and R4 zone) We did have a picket fence installed around the front yard about 4 years ago. This is for the safety of my small pets so they can go in the front yard and not be threatened by other dogs. I also was tired of our front yard being used as a dog park by the tenants in surrounding apartment buildings near me that do not have yards.
When we received the citations, we as a neighborhood reached out to Mayor Phil Brock and asked for help from the City Council. We explained to them how this is a slap in the face to the long-time homeowners on this block. We feel we are being harassed and discriminated against. We were told we could request a Modification at the cost of $3,345.16 which is unrealistic and burdensome. You are talking about retired, fixed income or one income household families! This is absolutely ridiculous! We are being singled out and asked to comply when the rest of the city is not affected. Why do you think it is okay to make one block within the city comply and ignore every other block because one person can’t have his way? I drive around the city all the time and see other homes with violations but none of them are being addressed. If you go north of Montana to the more fluent neighborhood you will find multifamily homes in that area with fences and hedges that are out of compliance but no one is forcing them to do anything about it. If it takes filing a complaint against all of the properties in Santa Monica, then I will be happy to supply the city with addresses.
The City of Santa Monica recently approved the modification in the Begamont area of Santa Monica and we are curious to know why this wasn’t passed for the entire city, which would then resolve the issue at hand.
We really feel that this is an attack on a neighborhood/community that is considered to be where families of color and those with a lower social economic status reside and are now being held to regulations when a blind eye is turned on other more prominent areas of the city.
We are asking to have the code modified to eliminate the need for removing our white picket fences from our front yards. We are talking about picket fences that provide 50% visibility, where the homeowner that was denied the permit wants a 6-7 foot concrete wall! We are not comparing apples to apples here, more like apples to grapes his 6-7 wall request to our picket fences (with visibility).
Thank you in advance for reading this email and for understanding my frustration concerning a problem that only became my (and others in the neighborhood) problem because the City denied the request of a person that lives on my same street. Please let’s just end this matter so myself and my neighbors can continue living peacefully on 18th and Pico.
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: Written Comments (6738 : Amending the Zoning Ordinance to increase heights in the front yard setback in R2, R3, and R4 zone) Carolyn Simon
-Hooks
Monica Simon
Homeowers on 18th Street
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
Item 16-D
October 22, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: Written Comments (6738 : Amending the Zoning Ordinance to increase heights in the front yard setback in R2, R3, and R4 zone) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 22, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request by Councilmember Parra and Mayor Brock to direct the City Attorney and City Manager to return to Council at the next meeting with a resolution to adopt a policy that height regulations for fences, walls, and hedges are the lowest code enforcement priority. Habitability and keeping people housed should be the priorities for enforcement.
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
16.E
Packet Pg. 1192
1 David Yakobson
From: Brian Stedge-Stroud <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16D & E
EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to support my neighbors on 18th Street who have recently been unfairly fined for fence and hedge heights. These longtime residents missed the opportunity to grandfather their fences in 2007 for several different reasons.
I want to express my sincere gratitude for the work Councilmember Parra and Mayor Brock have put into finding a creative solution to this unique issue.
Would reopening the grandfather exemption for families that could demonstrate the walls were built before 2007 be difficult?
Please support a pathway forward that doesn’t unfairly punish longtime residents who missed the grandfather exemption.
Brian Stedge-Stroud
90404
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Written Comments (6739 : Enforcement of Fences, Walls, and Hedges) 1 David Yakobson
From: Steven Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 8:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete
Cc: David White; [email protected]; Emily Arms
Subject: Agenda Items 16.D and 16.E
EXTERNAL
Esteemed Council Members,
I am writing in support 16.D and 16.E, not only because I support privacy and security for legacy properties in increasingly dense/gentrified R2, R3, and R4 zoned districts, but also because I am appalled at the selective and unequal enforcement the City applies across the neighborhoods.
Within my own 1-block radius in Sunset Park, I see multiple residences that laughably flaunt the current hedge and fence height regulations. (Pictured Below)
I could drive a few blocks more and document dozens of hedge and fence scofflaws, but because I live South of Pico, apparently there is no effective enforcement. (North of Montana is an even bigger joke.) Specifically, I have one Sunset Park neighbor who was reported to Code Enforcement for his massive 40- foot hedge that blocked the neighborhood view of the SMC fireworks -- yes, blocking half of the night sky when looking from across the street. After months of delay and multiple follow-ups with Code Enforcement, eventually he topped his frontage, but still was not in compliance by a wide margin. What are even the consequences of violating the current code? Apparently none, or at least no follow-up to ensure compliance in Sunset Park.
So, why are our neighbors in the historically diverse Pico Neighborhood being targeted for enforcement, such as on 18th street?
My understanding and personal experience is that the City practices selective enforcement based on individual complaints. That practice invites abuse and unequal application of the law and, in the case of 18th street, potential discrimination against legacy minority families in the neighborhood.
As an aside, the recent petty targeting of Councilmember de la Torre's fence situation seems to prove the point that historically diverse neighborhoods are the only populations that bear the scrutiny and wrath of code enforcement, when weaponized by someone with a grudge.
If the current hedge and fence code cannot be enforced equally and strictly across the City, then the code should be amended to match the legacy realities of our neighborhoods, or at the very least deprioritize enforcement in favor of other more important quality of life issues for Santa Monica residents (and not be solely responsive to personal vendettas).
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Written Comments (6739 : Enforcement of Fences, Walls, and Hedges) 2 This is why I support Council approving for advancement Items 16.D and 16.E Thank you.
* * * * * * * * * *
Steven Johnson
Sunset Park Resident
(310) 429-0475
Cedar St., east of 17th
Maple St., east of 17th
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: Written Comments (6739 : Enforcement of Fences, Walls, and Hedges) 3 Pine St., east of 17th
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: Written Comments (6739 : Enforcement of Fences, Walls, and Hedges) 4 Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: Written Comments (6739 : Enforcement of Fences, Walls, and Hedges) 5 David Yakobson
From: Carolyn Hooks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 7:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16D. and 16. E
Attachments: Agenda Items 16.D and 16.E.pdf
EXTERNAL
Please find attached letter regarding agenda items 16.D and 16.E Thank you
18th street Homeowner
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: Written Comments (6739 : Enforcement of Fences, Walls, and Hedges) Regarding Agenda Items 16. D And 16. E
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing this letter as homeowners on 18th Street in Santa Monica. This property has been in our family for almost 100 years, first being purchased by our grandparents.
We received a citation from code enforcement on 12/12/2023 stating we had 3 violations on our property.
1) SMMC 9.48.010 – Compliance with Article 9
2) SMMC 9.21.050 – Over height, hedge, wall, or fence
3) SMMC 9.21.050 – Hazardous Visual Obstructions
From what we understand, someone bought the home on the corner lot on the south/west side of 18th and Delaware and requested a permit for a 6 – 7-foot concrete wall around the property and was denied. He tried to appeal this decision and was denied again. Since our wonderful neighbor was not given his way, he decided to file complaints against everyone on the block (18th street between Pico and Delaware). Each homeowner was cited for various violations, mostly hedges and picket fences being 2 -3 inches higher than the code allows.
We are trying to understand why this person bought a home in an area where he doesn’t feel safe. In his requests I found comments of wanting this 6 – 7-foot concrete wall to protect him from the gang violence and drug trafficking among other things. I live on the same block, several houses down from him and have not witnessed anything like this.
Though we are aware of the increased amount of theft and violence occurring throughout the City of Santa Monica, and want everyone to be safe, does a 6-7 feet wall really ensure safety and why has his issue now become an issue for homeowners that have lived on the block for many generations.
Since receiving the citation, we have removed the hedges from our lot and other homeowners have trimmed and removed hedges and bushes to comply with the code.
Regarding the wall on our driveway, this wall has been there for over 50 years. It looks identical to the majority of walls in the Pico Neighborhood and were all built by the same man. (we know this because he was a homeowner on 18th street). There has never been an accident on our property due to the wall separating our property from the apartment building next door but now it is a “Hazardous Visual Obstruction” and needs to be modified.
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: Written Comments (6739 : Enforcement of Fences, Walls, and Hedges) We did have a picket fence installed around the front yard about 4 years ago. This is for the safety of my small pets so they can go in the front yard and not be threatened by other dogs. I also was tired of our front yard being used as a dog park by the tenants in surrounding apartment buildings near me that do not have yards.
When we received the citations, we as a neighborhood reached out to Mayor Phil Brock and asked for help from the City Council. We explained to them how this is a slap in the face to the long-time homeowners on this block. We feel we are being harassed and discriminated against. We were told we could request a Modification at the cost of $3,345.16 which is unrealistic and burdensome. You are talking about retired, fixed income or one income household families! This is absolutely ridiculous! We are being singled out and asked to comply when the rest of the city is not affected. Why do you think it is okay to make one block within the city comply and ignore every other block because one person can’t have his way? I drive around the city all the time and see other homes with violations but none of them are being addressed. If you go north of Montana to the more fluent neighborhood you will find multifamily homes in that area with fences and hedges that are out of compliance but no one is forcing them to do anything about it. If it takes filing a complaint against all of the properties in Santa Monica, then I will be happy to supply the city with addresses.
The City of Santa Monica recently approved the modification in the Begamont area of Santa Monica and we are curious to know why this wasn’t passed for the entire city, which would then resolve the issue at hand.
We really feel that this is an attack on a neighborhood/community that is considered to be where families of color and those with a lower social economic status reside and are now being held to regulations when a blind eye is turned on other more prominent areas of the city.
We are asking to have the code modified to eliminate the need for removing our white picket fences from our front yards. We are talking about picket fences that provide 50% visibility, where the homeowner that was denied the permit wants a 6-7 foot concrete wall! We are not comparing apples to apples here, more like apples to grapes his 6-7 wall request to our picket fences (with visibility).
Thank you in advance for reading this email and for understanding my frustration concerning a problem that only became my (and others in the neighborhood) problem because the City denied the request of a person that lives on my same street. Please let’s just end this matter so myself and my neighbors can continue living peacefully on 18th and Pico.
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: Written Comments (6739 : Enforcement of Fences, Walls, and Hedges) Carolyn Simon
-Hooks
Monica Simon
Homeowers on 18th Street
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
Item 16-E
October 22, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: Written Comments (6739 : Enforcement of Fences, Walls, and Hedges)