Council Tackles Safety, Legal Fees and Hedges

By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

August 12 -- Although much of the action at Tuesday’s council meeting took place behind closed doors, the Council City did direct staff to return with how best to boost affordable housing, limit product promotions at the pier and Downtown and erect a 75-room hotel and restaurant near the beach.

Before tackling business as usual, though, City officials met in closed session for nearly two hours to discuss securing prime Santa Monica venues against potential terrorist attacks and settle fees in a case that has cost the City nearly half a million dollars to push all the way to the California Supreme Court.

Council members agreed to paid out nearly $229,191 in opposing attorney's fees Tuesday, drawing to an end a quirky case that saw the City sue its own clerk to halt an anti-corruption law approved by Santa Monica voters in 2000. (see related story)

Under the initiative, officials cannot receive gifts from public benefit recipients for two years after the expiration of their terms, two years after the official's departure from office or six years from the date the official acted to approve the allocation, whichever comes first.

The settlement brought the total tab spent by the City to nearly $430,000 to oppose the law, according to the City Attorneys office.

That’s money Consumer Advocate Carmen Balber of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, which worked to enforce the law, says could have been spent more wisely.

“This is really the final chapter,” she said. “It seems like a waste of nearly a half million dollars spent by the City to fight a taxpayer approved initiative, but the City knew what it was getting itself into when opposing the proposition.”

City officials -- who launched to suit to overturn a law they argued is unconstitutional -- agreed that this is, indeed, the end of a legal battle that has wound its way through the courts for more than four years.

"What happened procedurally is that the City asked the Supreme Court to accept the appeal, which denies probably 99 percent of all appeals, and they denied it," said Bloom. "That effectively brought the litigation to an end."

While substantial, the payout to opposing lawyers could have been nearly $50,000 more, according to City officials.

"I can say this -- the amount was negotiated and the potential fee could have been very significantly higher," said Bloom. "I know the fee was based on billing records kept by the attorney."

In addition to the settlement monies, City attorneys estimate they spent nearly $200,000 on legal expenses spent by the City.

Now that the City has thrown in the towel, Balber said any violations that occurred while the law was being challenged are fair game, and that her foundation is “currently looking into a few things,” though she did not disclose any details.

In more dramatic closed door discussions, City officials received a briefing from police on "matters posing a threat to public properties" in Santa Monica in light of new information that the three men were allegedly observed videotaping the pier in a suspicious manner in mid-July. (see related story)

Council member Richard Bloom said City officials reacted to the news as “something we need to take very seriously.”

“The fire department, police, and City staff are all looking at what appropriate action must be taken in response,” said Bloom. “None of this stuff happens in a vacuum. We’ve been moving on improving security ever since 9/11.”

The installation of security cameras and regular inspections of City buses were just two measures Bloom said the City has taken in recent years.

While some privacy in public places may have to be sacrificed as part of $2.2 million in additional security measures -- including installing cameras at the pier and on the Promenade -- City officials must be diligent about how any information gathered is used, Bloom said.

“Security cameras have become an unwelcome but necessary fixture in our lives,” Bloom said. “What happens with that information, however, once those cameras are installed is important in that we make sure it is only used for security reasons.”

Moving on to regular business, the Council directed staff to give input on how to bring the City’s affordable housing goals in line with recent changes in the state law, which must be completed prior to the Land Use and Circulation elements are updated by the City.

Parking was mentioned as a key concern on how to enforce the new law.

The Council also asked staff to come back with a law that would give control to the Bayside District Corporation -- which oversees operations Downtown -- and the Pier Corporation to restrict product sampling in those areas.

Following extensive input by both the Landmarks and Planning commissions, staff was asked to move forward on a development agreement for a 75-room hotel and restaurant at 1327-1337 Ocean Avenue.

Finally, it looks like the City has put to rest the issue of hedge and fence heights, fine-tuning the law on the barriers and what is defined as a hedge.

Here are the details of what property owners can expect soon when the new regulations go into effect:

• Front yard fence and hedge heights will remain at 42 inches.
  
• Side and back yard fence heights will remain at eight feet.
  
• But hedges in side and back yards can be higher; once limited to eight feet, they can now grow to 12 feet. Also, no height limits will be imposed on side and back yard hedges adjacent to an alley.
  
• Variances will be given to extend side and back yard fences and hedges an additional four feet beyond the height limits. Unless a neighbor objects to the variance, the applicant’s fee is $100. If a neighbor objects and the application for a variance needs to be reviewed, the fee goes up to $200.
  
• Existing hedges that exceed the height limits will be “grandfathered” unless an immediate neighbor can convince the City that they are adversely affected by nonconforming hedge. Those who wish to file a complaint must do so within 60 days after the new regulations take effect The City will be mailing out postcards notifying residents about the time limit. Owners of “grandfathered” fences and hedges will register with the City.
  
• The front yards of sloped lots may be terraced with retaining walls no higher than 42 inches and at least 42 inches apart.
  
• Residents may build a guard rail above a 42 inch front yard wall provided it’s for safety reasons and is at least 50 percent transparent.
  
• Pergolas and similar entrance features will be allowed up to eight feet high and seven feet wide.
  
• Lamps and decorative objects will be allowed to go 12 inches above the height limits and must be spaced five feet apart.