Counseling The City Council SMa.r.t.

This week, our SMa.r.t. column is authored by concerned resident Nikki Kolhoff. Nikki has been an active voice in the community for many years, focusing on both City and SMMUSD issues that impact us all. The current issue Nikki is addressing here is something all residents should be concerned about, namely the unwarranted sale/lease of our historic Civic Center Auditorium and the behind-the-doors manner in which the City Staff and Council have proceeded without public input and participation. She first communicated these data points to the Council in April and again at last week’s City Council meeting, noting they had made no changes to their positions.

City Council -

I urge you to oppose the sale of the Civic Center Auditorium and instead give direction to staff to commence a public process to identify viable options for revitalizing our Civic Center Auditorium. The reasons are many:

1. Questions for Staff: The entire premise for the October resolution is based on a longterm lease and not a sale, which raises the question of why the staff is now pushing a sale. The staff report furthers the long-term lease premise by stating they won’t even need to designate as surplus “if HCD confirms that the long-term leasing of the existing facility with only interior tenant improvements is not subject to the SLA.” So why did they need to designate it surplus in October? Did the staff get a response from HCD? The only reason the council declared it surplus was to start the process for a lease with improvements not subject to the SLA. Staff’s argument pushed for a resolution claiming it is needed prior to disposition. However, there is nothing in the report that says this had to happen before engaging in discussions with potential parties and the discussion of potential options.

2. No findings of surplus: the resolution states:

“Whereas, the City Council desires to declare the City Owned Properties as surplus land and not necessary for the City’s use; and whereas the City Council desires that the City-Owned Properties be treated as surplus land within the meaning of the SLA, to the extent required by the SLA, whereas the accompanying staff report provides supporting information upon which the declaration and findings set forth in this Resolution are based;” Where are the findings in the staff report that the Auditorium is surplus? We don’t see any such findings. Given the lack of findings and the premises under which staff moved this forward, the October 2022 resolutions must be rescinded.

3. SMMUSD demolishes historic buildings: SMMUSD is a terrible partner when it comes to historic resources and landmarks. They expressly refused to include local criteria in their “historic resources policy” and demolished both the JAMS Auditorium and the Samohi History Building. They are not bound to local rules, so a sale to SMMUSD ensures the demolition of the Auditorium.

4. Housing is not appropriate in a Civic Center: The Village housing development is already a shame and a misuse of public land. Luxury condos (or any housing) have no place being built in a Civic Center. A Civic Center is for public amenities and for open use by the residents of Santa Monica and visitors from the public. A transfer to Community Corp removes the land from public use, and there is no guarantee it would even house current Santa Monica residents at risk of displacement.

5. Lack of public process for the last six years and a sham before that: The last “public” process was an RFP in 2017. Staff and council continuing to noodle options with a single suitor is obviously not a robust public process and surely isn’t sufficient to dispose of a landmark. Prior to that, there was the Civic Center Working Group, which was implemented to railroad development of the Civic Center and was heavily biased toward private developer uses. There is no other explanation for a panel drawing the conclusion that the SMC Lab School, a walled-off fortress for private daycare, seemingly for Rand, SMC, and City staff, is an appropriate use while the

Sports Field, used by thousands of residents and visitors every week, is not.

Times have changed, and a fully open public process to determine the future of the Auditorium is needed. We need all options on the table, all potential partners to be engaged, and a grand plan to revive the music scene in Santa Monica at the Auditorium. It is absurd that the council could find a landmarked, historic music and entertainment venue that is no longer needed in Santa Monica.

6. Backwards fiscal priorities of Staff and Council got us here. Santa Monica loves to cry broke. But we are not. Our leaders just have terrible priorities for the use of our ample resources. Remember, when the renovation was estimated at $50 million, Staff, Council, SMC, and SMMUSD prioritized the following before spending any money on the Civic Auditorium:

• Demolition of the historic JAMS Auditorium and replacement with a $45 million middle school auditorium paid for by SMMUSD and SMC bonds;

• Gifting SMC the Civic Center land for free and spending $34 million of city funds and SMC bonds on what seems to function as private daycare for City, SMC, and Rand staff;

• Demolishing the History Building to spend $85 million of SMMUSD bonds on a classroom building we don’t need because of declining enrollment;

• Spending $141 million on a city hall annex for 243 staff;

• Spending $85 million in SMMUSD bonds on a “practice gym” that cannot host legitimate sporting events;

• Spending $100 million on a sewage treatment plant that might not work.

• I am sure there are more examples, but these alone would have paid for the Civic Auditorium eight times over.

7. Brown Act: The broad use of the Brown Act exception to avoid public discussions isn’t permissible. Nobody believes that your closeddoor meetings have been limited to price. And holding the closed-door meeting to take action prior to the public component is even more damning. We, the public, are entitled to hear all the details except the price, and that is not

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT

FILE NUMBER: 2023 858838 ORIGINAL FILING This statement was filed with the County Clerk of LOS ANGELES ON 07/06/2023. The following person (persons) is (are) doing business as 1. KAO INSTITUTE. The full name of registrant(s) is/are: CK Holdings Inc., 900 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 100, Santa Monica, Ca. 90401. This business is conducted by A Corporation.

The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 06/1/2023. I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime). Signed CK Holdings. This Statement was filed with the County Clerk of LOS ANGELES County on June 01, 2023. NOTICE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION (a) OF SECTION 17920, A FICTITIOUS NAME STATEMENT

GENERALLY EXPIRES AT THE END OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH IT WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK, EXCEPT, AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (b) OF SECTION 17920, WHERE IT EXPIRES 40 DAYS AFTER ANY CHANGE IN THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 17913 OTHER THAN A CHANGE IN THE RESIDENCE ADDRESS OF A REGISTERED OWNER. A NEW FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT MUST BE FILED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION. THE FILING OF THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT OF ITSELF AUTHORIZE THE USE IN THIS STATE OF A FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER UNDER FEDERAL, STATE, OR COMMON LAW (SEE SECTION 14411 ET SEQ., BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE). SANTA MONICA MIRROR to publish 06/23/23, 06/30/23, 07/07/23 and 07/14/2023 happening here.

Also, the agenda title for the October 2022 resolution only listed the address and not the structure in the first item, which means the description wasn’t adequate to comply with the Brown Act.

SMa.r.t.

Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow

Ron Goldman, Architect FAIA; Robert H. Taylor, Architect AIA; Dan Jansenson, Architect, Building & Fire-Life Safety Commissioner; Thane Roberts, Architect; Mario Fonda-Bonardi, Architect AIA, Planning Commissioner; Samuel Tolkin, Architect, Planning Commissioner; Michael Jolly, AIR-CRE

For previous articles, see www. santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writing

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT

FILE NUMBER: 2023147284 ORIGINAL FILING This statement was filed with the County Clerk of LOS ANGELES ON 07/06/2023. The following person (persons) is (are) doing business as 1. Elizabeth Idlehart. The full name of registrant(s) is/are: Elizabeth Moser, 13970 Pana Way, Ste. 210., Los Angeles, Ca. 90292. This business is conducted by An Individual. The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 07/1/2023. I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime). Signed Elizabeth Moser. This Statement was filed with the County Clerk of LOS ANGELES County on July 07, 2023. NOTICE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION (a) OF SECTION 17920, A FICTITIOUS NAME STATEMENT GENERALLY EXPIRES AT THE END OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH IT WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK, EXCEPT, AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (b) OF SECTION 17920, WHERE IT EXPIRES 40 DAYS AFTER ANY CHANGE IN THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 17913 OTHER THAN A CHANGE IN THE RESIDENCE ADDRESS OF A REGISTERED OWNER. A NEW FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT MUST BE FILED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION. THE FILING OF THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT OF ITSELF AUTHORIZE THE USE IN THIS STATE OF A FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER UNDER FEDERAL, STATE, OR COMMON LAW (SEE SECTION 14411 ET SEQ., BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE). SANTA MONICA MIRROR to publish 07/07/23, 07/14/23, 07/21/23 and 07/28/2023

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME

Case No. 23SMCP00350 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 1725 Main St. | Santa Monica, CA 90401

Petition of: Jennifer Bowie McCarthy , by and through Jennifer Bowie McCarthy for change of name.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME

To all interested persons: Isabelle Patricia McCarthy

Petitioner: filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: a. Isabelle Patricia McCarthy to Cameron James Reese McCarthy

The court orders that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.

NOTICE OF HEARING:

Date: 08/25/23 | Time: 8:30AM | Dept: K A copy of this ORDER to SHOW CAUSE shall be published at least once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation, printed in this county: SANTA MONICA MIRROR | Dated: July 6, 2023

Judge Lawrence Cho

Published: 07/07/2023, 07/14/23, 07/21/2023, and 07/28/2023