"In comments proposing use of federal stimulus funds to purchase distressed properties to convert them to homeless housing, Bonin revealed both bias and that he has already rounded up support of the city council to support this plan prior to public participation, a clear Brown Act violation," said Mark Ryavec, president of the VSA.
Mr. Lewis' letter is below.
Steve
Houchin, Deputy City Attorney
Office of
the Los Angeles City Attorney
200 N. Main
St., Floor 7
Los Angeles,
CA 90012
RE: Brown Act Violation
Dear Mr. Houchin,
I am litigation and land use counsel for Venice Stakeholders
Association (“VSA.”) As you may be aware, VSA, founded in 2009, is a nonprofit
organization dedicated to civic improvement. The VSA supports slow growth, the
limits of the Venice Local Coastal Specific Plan, neighborhood safety, better
traffic circulation, increased parking for residents, neighborhood
beautification projects, historic preservation, habitat restoration and
protection of coastal waters.
VSA has been monitoring press reports about Councilman Mike
Bonin’s plan to use federal stimulus funds to buy distressed properties for
homeless housing. VSA is very concerned with the City’s role in placing real
properties in a distressed condition and then capitalizing on that
circumstance. However, putting that policy decision aside for a moment, VSA
raises two time-sensitive and important procedural issues to your attention.
First and foremost, in one recent report*, Bonin told news
reporter, Bill Melugin, that “the city council supports the proposal and is
looking to fast track it….” This statement suggests that Bonin has been
communicating, directly or indirectly, with other council members to build
support for this policy decision without complying with the Brown Act. In the
event of litigation to enforce the Brown Act, a deposition of Bill Melugin
would confirm that conversation took place. VSA requests that your office
investigate Bonin’s conduct and to remind him that the City remains subject to
the Brown Act even during a pandemic.
Second, Bonin’s statements to the press suggest that he has
already determined how he would vote on the issue of using federal funds to
purchase distressed properties. To the extent that Bonin is ever asked to vote
on whether to acquire distressed properties, he has demonstrated sufficient
bias as to require his recusal.**
VSA notes that when the City was proposing to amend
Municipal Code section 85.02, Bonin was required to recuse himself due to his
prior, vocal stance on the issue. VSA requests that the City Attorney’s office
similarly advise Bonin of his obligation to recuse himself on this issue.
VSA appreciates your attention to this important issue and
we look forward to your prompt and written response.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey Lewis
*See 216 Sutter Bay Associates v. County of Sutter (1997) 58
Cal.App.4th 860, 877 [holding that Brown Act prohibits serial meetings by
majority of legislative body to engage in collective deliberation on public
business].
**See
“LA City councilman proposes using federal
stimulus funds to buy distressed properties for homeless housing,” published
April 23, 2020 and available at:
https://www.fox5ny.com/news/lacity-councilman-proposes-using-federal-stimulus-funds-to-buy-distressed-properties-for-homelesshousing
April 24, and see, e.g., Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach
(2015) 233
Cal.App.4th 1012, 1021–1022 [holding that council member whose conduct
creates
probability of actual bias must recuse from land use decision].
