Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Side walk chained off after 8pm in front of New Leaf downtown
A store manager named Amber tells me "The store requested the area be closed because of undesirables hanging out and criminal activities in the area." That this request was supported by the Corporate Office. She suggested contacting her superior Sue, (831)425-1793, or the Corporate Office at 1121 Pacific Ave, SC, 65060 for further information. Please see documents included from public records request obtained by Robert Norse. Bob Patton member HRO
Office of the City Manager
Santa Cruz, CA
To Whom It May Concern:
Last week, apparently without any public hearings or notice, New Leaf Market put up chains blocking off sidewalk previously open to the public (though privately leased during the day). This blockage creates an attractive nuisance and also intentionally obstructs public passage across 2/3 of the sidewalk near Soquel and Pacific Avenues.
It interferes with handicapped access and also removes public seating space.
Please advise me of the authority by which either the City or its leasee New Leaf is closing off this area at night--at a time when no business is being done.
Please also make available for viewing or listening the following public records. I may need to make copies of some of these documents once I've reviewed them.
1. A copy of any agreements between the City and any of it agencies with New Leaf Market (on Pacific Avenue), Alfresco's, and Cafe Campesino.
2. Any e-mails between city officials, city staff, and members of the public regarding the leased sidewalk area in front of New Leaf Market on Pacific Avenue.
3. Any documents referencing City Council or staff actions concerning these three businesses in since July 2007,including but not limited to actions by Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and the Redevelopment Agency.
4. Any written communication between the any city agency (including but not limited to the City Manager, City Attorney, RDA, P&R, and Public Works) and the SCPD regarding enforcement action on or around New Leaf Market, particularly relating to the sidewalk area jointly leased by New Leaf, Alfresco's, and Cafe Campesino.
5. Any records of any scheduled meetings Mayor Coonerty and Vice-Mayor Mathews have had with any of these businesses, or with any city agency regarding the leased area in front of these businesses as required by state law from sitting Mayors.
6. Any actions by City Council or any city agencies taken regarding the use of the sidewalk space in front of New Leaf Market (including the leased space) in the last year.
Please forward this Public Records Act request to any of the relevant city agencies, and cc me with the forwarded correspondence and any response.
Thanks for your cooperation.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 831-423-4833.
Sincerely,
Robert Norse
Santa Cruz, CA
To Whom It May Concern:
Last week, apparently without any public hearings or notice, New Leaf Market put up chains blocking off sidewalk previously open to the public (though privately leased during the day). This blockage creates an attractive nuisance and also intentionally obstructs public passage across 2/3 of the sidewalk near Soquel and Pacific Avenues.
It interferes with handicapped access and also removes public seating space.
Please advise me of the authority by which either the City or its leasee New Leaf is closing off this area at night--at a time when no business is being done.
Please also make available for viewing or listening the following public records. I may need to make copies of some of these documents once I've reviewed them.
1. A copy of any agreements between the City and any of it agencies with New Leaf Market (on Pacific Avenue), Alfresco's, and Cafe Campesino.
2. Any e-mails between city officials, city staff, and members of the public regarding the leased sidewalk area in front of New Leaf Market on Pacific Avenue.
3. Any documents referencing City Council or staff actions concerning these three businesses in since July 2007,including but not limited to actions by Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and the Redevelopment Agency.
4. Any written communication between the any city agency (including but not limited to the City Manager, City Attorney, RDA, P&R, and Public Works) and the SCPD regarding enforcement action on or around New Leaf Market, particularly relating to the sidewalk area jointly leased by New Leaf, Alfresco's, and Cafe Campesino.
5. Any records of any scheduled meetings Mayor Coonerty and Vice-Mayor Mathews have had with any of these businesses, or with any city agency regarding the leased area in front of these businesses as required by state law from sitting Mayors.
6. Any actions by City Council or any city agencies taken regarding the use of the sidewalk space in front of New Leaf Market (including the leased space) in the last year.
Please forward this Public Records Act request to any of the relevant city agencies, and cc me with the forwarded correspondence and any response.
Thanks for your cooperation.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 831-423-4833.
Sincerely,
Robert Norse
For more information:
http://www.humanrightsorg.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
So it was the POLICE who prompted another LOSS OF PUBLIC SPACE by contacting the Redevelopment Agency and suggesting chaining the area off at night. Since the SCPD have declared war on peaceable assembly, I'm not surprised. The Council had promised to keep the area open at night when they first privatized the sidewalk back in 2002. Now they have gone back on their word, and in a very underhanded way.
A private memo behind closed doors, and a go-ahead based on "lack of response" by the council. How was any member of the public supposed to weigh in when they didn't even know it was happening? Why does the council publicly review and pass the lease agreement conditions at a public meeting and then privately and behind closed doors change that policy?
This smells totally fishy to me.
A private memo behind closed doors, and a go-ahead based on "lack of response" by the council. How was any member of the public supposed to weigh in when they didn't even know it was happening? Why does the council publicly review and pass the lease agreement conditions at a public meeting and then privately and behind closed doors change that policy?
This smells totally fishy to me.
If you have ever petitioned the city to authorize a change in the conditions of an existing Use Permit there is really nothing "fishy" about the letter posted above. That letter is an end result of some other actions. Since the RA is the landlord of the kiosks, and had originally endorsed that the enclosed space be used for a certain purpose, they were most likely approached by the tenants to endorse the change. The tenants most likely had been working with the police on the problems taking place within the enclosure and relayed this involvement on to the RA. When a change in a Use Permit is being requested a packet from the planning dept, including letters such as this and others, would be forwarded to the Planning Commission or the council. If you read the letter carefully it states that the police endorse this change, but it does not say that they initiated the request.
Taken on it's own I can see where someone could come to the above conclusion. But if this letter is part of other documents in a packet, it is being taken out of context. The more important document would be the one saying who initiated the change to the permit.
Taken on it's own I can see where someone could come to the above conclusion. But if this letter is part of other documents in a packet, it is being taken out of context. The more important document would be the one saying who initiated the change to the permit.
Other than the leases of Cafe Campesino and Alfesco's (and some correspondence with the former on their struggle to keep and extend their lease), there were virtually no other documents provided.
I encourage specifically knowledgable people who might advise me on how to more effectively request more from the police get involved, as the northern California ACLU did in the successful Public Records Act requests of two years ago,exposing police surveillance of peaceful political groups.
I asked that the City Clerk keep the documents (those that I was able to loose from the clutches of the city departments) available for interested members of the public to look them over. The file is available to view at the City Council offices at 809 Cedar St. during business hours. Ask for "Robert Norse's Public Records Act request about the sidewalk in front of New Leaf Market".
Talking to the businesses affected, I judge the key party seems to be the Redevelopment Agency. Dave's suggestion that this action was initiated by the businesses involved is probably incorrect. Indeed Julie Hende, who works there, confirmed that the fenced area was originally supposed to be open to the public during non-business hours, but could be closed on the whim of the RDA, if the City Council did not object when informed. Traditionally the cops and the RDA work very closely together as they did in shutting down the sittable area of the planter in front of the Pacific Trading Company in 2003.
That would be another document to seek--how far the authorization of the RDA to unilaterally close public spaces without public notice, hearing, or input, extends. Another important issue is whether the SCPD provided any documentation or input into this process.
It's hard to believe nothing was written requesting a closure of the public area from the businesses involved, if they were actually a part of this, nor that any e-mails weren't exchanged with the SCPD on this issue involving crime stats and so forth. Or, at the very least, complaints about cleaning the sidewalk.
Sounds like Dave has some familiarity with the internal (and closed) workings of the City's space-seizing agencies. Maybe he can get some more info and post it.
In the meantime, I encourage people to reclaim public space directly as best they can and support those who do.
I encourage specifically knowledgable people who might advise me on how to more effectively request more from the police get involved, as the northern California ACLU did in the successful Public Records Act requests of two years ago,exposing police surveillance of peaceful political groups.
I asked that the City Clerk keep the documents (those that I was able to loose from the clutches of the city departments) available for interested members of the public to look them over. The file is available to view at the City Council offices at 809 Cedar St. during business hours. Ask for "Robert Norse's Public Records Act request about the sidewalk in front of New Leaf Market".
Talking to the businesses affected, I judge the key party seems to be the Redevelopment Agency. Dave's suggestion that this action was initiated by the businesses involved is probably incorrect. Indeed Julie Hende, who works there, confirmed that the fenced area was originally supposed to be open to the public during non-business hours, but could be closed on the whim of the RDA, if the City Council did not object when informed. Traditionally the cops and the RDA work very closely together as they did in shutting down the sittable area of the planter in front of the Pacific Trading Company in 2003.
That would be another document to seek--how far the authorization of the RDA to unilaterally close public spaces without public notice, hearing, or input, extends. Another important issue is whether the SCPD provided any documentation or input into this process.
It's hard to believe nothing was written requesting a closure of the public area from the businesses involved, if they were actually a part of this, nor that any e-mails weren't exchanged with the SCPD on this issue involving crime stats and so forth. Or, at the very least, complaints about cleaning the sidewalk.
Sounds like Dave has some familiarity with the internal (and closed) workings of the City's space-seizing agencies. Maybe he can get some more info and post it.
In the meantime, I encourage people to reclaim public space directly as best they can and support those who do.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network