Is City Council Above the Law?

I would like someone to explain why city staff neglected to inform the City Council on June 27 of the Historic Landmarks Commission’s unanimous recommendations for the three issues put to them at the HLC meeting on June 21. Staff came to the HLC for guidance on these specific items:

•  what to do with the existing State Street dining structures
•  what to do about the off-State Street dining “parklets”
•  what to do about the dining areas/structures on Private Property (primarily in the Funk Zone)

HLC’s recommendations at their June 21st meeting were unanimous and emphatic.

•  State Street dining structures could remain during the interim while the State Street Advisory Committee (SSAC) process proceeds, but all roof structures should be immediately removed.

•  All off-State dining “parklets” and structures should be immediately removed.
•  All dining structures and areas on Private Property should be immediately removed.

Why was the full council, in open session, not informed of these recommendations prior to any public or council discussion of the issues?

It should be noted that one councilmember, Kristen Sneddon, was in attendance at that HLC meeting. Did she not hear their discussion and recommendations? Why did she not inform her fellow councilmembers and the public of HLC’s recommendations?

Why was this information withheld from the public and the full City Council at the open meeting on Tuesday, June 27?

HLC was relegated to a very short Public Comment about their recommendations.

The HLC is part of the City Charter. The commission has regulatory power over all projects in the El Pueblo Viejo. Even the city must bring city projects to the HLC for review and approvals.

Are pet projects of the City Council exempt from HLC review and regulation? While those of us in the public sector often spend months in the review and approval process?

The council, by its actions on the 27th, made it clear they intend to extend the ERETO [Economic Recovery Extension and Transition Ordinance] provisions regarding all “parklets” and outdoor dining for the next three years. They suggested provisions, not yet specified, for “parklets” off State and on private property to be required to get regulatory approvals, again not specified, in order to continue operations.

Had council been informed of the specific HLC recommendations to remove all off-State and private property dining “parklets” and areas, it is very possible that the actions above would have required more discussion before council approval.

Council would have had to ignore or override the HLC recommendation in an open meeting, in front of the public.

The City Council and staff are negligent in not informing the public of the HLC recommendations. Councilmember Sneddon needs to explain why she did not disclose the HLC’s actions to her colleagues and the public in an open session.

The City Attorney needs to explain how the council can put the city on a path to violating its own City Charter by disregarding its own regulatory Historic Landmarks Commission’s recommendations.

Has City Council, by its actions, already violated its own charter?

When those off-State and private property structures come before HLC down the road, and are rejected, can we expect council to again defy HLC, and its own charter, and issue approvals?

When the Building Department denies approvals for those applicants due to code issues, can we expect the council to again override the process?

This is direction the City Council is taking the City of Santa Barbara. Why?