'This Isn't Sharing': Outraged Residents Confront Saint John's Over Parking Proposal

, Santa Monica residents expressed outrage toward city officials and representatives at Tuesday night's community meeting. The gathering was prompted by the hospital's use of community street- and lot-parking resources, and its intention to construct a multi-story subterranean parking structure through a proposed amendment to a long-standing development agreement with the city.

By the time the meeting ended, it was evident that the city attorney would need to clarify whether Saint John’s had followed protocol in notifying the city and neighboring residents of its interest in changing the existing development agreement.

The meeting, which was held at the , began at 7 p.m. and was forced to come to a close when the branch shut its doors at 9 p.m. The discussion became so heated that one of the attendees, Kenny Mack, was prompted by library security to leave the meeting about 30 minutes after it began.

Mack, a Santa Monica resident whose property is situated near the hospital's campus on Santa Monica Blvd., wasted no time in voicing his concerns and raising legal questions at the meeting. He said the hospital had already been given a significant amount of latitude in finishing its proposed developments, and that amending the development agreement requires the approval of the and the Planning Commission.

Mack and others around him shouted questions at city staffers and at Chris Harding of Harding Lamore Kutcher and Kozal, LLP, the law firm representing Saint John’s.

“If you look at the slides [for the proposed construction], there’s no evidence of a north subterranean parking garage, which they committed to building in 1998 as a mitigation for the 29,000 estimated new car trips to the expanded hospital campus,” Mack said. “Those new car trips are happening; the burden of dealing with that traffic has fallen on these taxpaying Santa Monicans.”

“The questions are very simple," he said at another point. "It’s a two-phase notification process. Has your client gone through it or not?”

Eventually, Mack walked to the front of the room and addressed Harding directly, demanding answers.

“I cannot believe that you would sell your community out like this. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?” Mack said.

Harding defended the merits of his work and that of Saint John’s, repeatedly insisting that his client was in compliance with the city’s procedures for the proposed amendment. He also said he would be willing to review the issue to address claims raised in the meeting.

“I’ve said I will take another look at it, and I will. That’s the best answer I can give you,” Harding said. “Badgering me is not going to get you a different answer. You don’t like the answers I’ve given you.”

Mack's statements seemed to encapsulate the sentiments of the majority of attendees.

“I am deeply offended that you have represented [Santa Monica] residents in negotiations with Saint John’s without including us,” said David Cole, a resident and former chair of Mid-City Neighbors. “You need to know your position in this: You are between us and the developer. You are to negotiate when we give you permission to do so … and you need to represent our interests at least equally to theirs.”

Gregg Heacock, president of , was willing to offer some concessions regarding the hospital and its various merits, but remained firm on that parking at and around the hospital is dysfunctional. Heacock highlighted the , which calls for shared parking but does not allow certain properties to permanently abuse the parking resources of their neighbors.

“Already we’ve got shared parking over at the right next door, and that lot ... is full of people going to that hospital when other people want to go to the bank,” he said. “I don’t call that shared parking; I call that stolen parking. It’s stolen from the neighborhood. This isn’t sharing.”

Editor's note: Mack told Santa Monica Patch that "security [took] no action whatsoever—and I remain composed. ... I had no contact with any security personnel, nor was any security personnel called upon or needed."