m20210309.pdf 1 March 9, 2021
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 9, 2021
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 5:34
p.m., on Tuesday, March 9, 2021, via teleconference pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20
at https://primetime.bluejeans.com/a2m/live-event/bhgtxxge
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre (arrived at 6:40 p.m.)
Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: Interim City Manager Lane Dilg
Interim City Attorney George Cardona
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE
On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:34 p.m.,
with all members present except Councilmember de la Torre.
MEETING MANAGEMENT Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember
Davis, to pull Item 7.D. from the agenda.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember de la Torre
Councilmember Brock provided the following statement as to
why he pulled the item.
“I am astounded, frankly, that a small adjustment to the
residential noise ordinance that I requested in mid December as
a result of requests from Sunset Park residents who could not
have peace and tranquility in their purely residential
neighborhood morphed into an overarching anti protest
ordinance revision that affects the entire city. On top of which, it
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
2 March 9, 2021
became an urgency ordinance revision. I resent that my specific,
targeted method of helping our families in their homes at night
became a ploy to change the rules of noise, protests, and the
implements that protesters might utilize in the whole city. While
those revisions may be necessary in light of the events of the
past year both here and around the nation it was improper to add
this to the narrowly crafted item 13 Councilmember Parra and I
introduced at the meeting of December 15th. I request that you
return with a staff report that addresses our 13 item and that the
report is issued at least two weeks before it is placed on the
agenda so the council members who requested the neighborhood
noise ordinance have a chance to review it. Whether staff meant
to imply that I was the enemy of the 1st amendment or not, I can
assure you that I am firmly in the corner of free speech. I further
request that the additional items that were placed into 7.D. be
molded into a separate urgency motion if desired by our public
safety departments. Finally, as a simple courtesy, this is now the
third time since I was sworn in that I have failed to see staff and
council members communicate with each other regarding
matters of mutual interest. It would have seemed to me that
items within 7.D. that came as a result of a 13 item could have
been discussed with the makers. I do not appreciate, nor do
others, being left out to dry in front of the public.”
CLOSED SESSIONS
Councilmember de la Torre joined at
6:40 p.m.
There was no public comment on closed sessions.
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 5:41p.m., to
consider closed sessions and returned at 6:42 p.m., with all
members present, to report the following:
1.A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been Initiated Formally Pursuant to Gov.
Code Section 54956.9 (d) (1): Jad Alrabadi v. City of Santa
Monica, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
18STCV08958.
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no
reportable action taken.
1.B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Nathan v. City of
Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
19STCV30751.
The Interim City Attorney advised the complaint in this case
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
3 March 9, 2021
alleges that the Plaintiff, 70-years old at the time, suffered a tear
of his rotator cuff, a chipped tooth, and numerous bruises when
he tripped on a sidewalk displacement on California Avenue that
constituted a dangerous condition. The City does not admit the
allegations, but to avoid the expense and burden of further
litigation, the City Attorney’s Office recommended settlement in
the amount of $25,000.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by
Councilmember Davis, to approve Settlement Agreement No.
11145 (CCS), in the amount of $25,000. The motion was
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock,
de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan,
Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
1.C. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Stewart v. City of
Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
20STCV21038.
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no
reportable action taken.
1.D. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been Initiated Formally Pursuant to Gov.
Code Section 54956.9 (d) (1): EJA Associates, L.P., a
California limited partnership v. City of Santa Monica, et al.,
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Nos. 20SMCV01103,
20SMCV01550.
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no
reportable action taken.
1.E. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Gov. Code
Section 54956.9(d)(1): John Doe #1, et al. v. City of Santa
Monica, Santa Monica PAL, et al., Los Angeles Superior
Court, Case No. 20STCV36226; John Doe #1 v. City of
Santa Monica, Santa Monica PAL, et al., Los Angeles
Superior Court, Case No. 20STCV39505; John UA Doe, et
al. v. City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica PAL, et al., Los
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
4 March 9, 2021
Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 20STCV43543; John AI
Doe v. City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica PAL, et al., Los
Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 20STCV44059; John Doe
#7, et al. v. City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica PAL, et al.,
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 20STCV46215; John
PS Doe v. City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica PAL, et al.,
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 20STCV48207; John
FM Doe, et al. v. Roe #1, Roe #2, et al., Los Angeles Superior
Court, Case No. 20STCV49643; John UN Doe v. City of
Santa Monica, Santa Monica PAL, et al., Los Angeles
Superior Court, Case No. 21STCV00968; John OQ Doe, et
al. v. Santa Monica PAL, City of Santa Monica, et al., Los
Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 21STCV04365.
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no
reportable action taken.
REPORT ON MEETING
COMPENSATION
Pursuant to State law, City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
announced that Council will receive no compensation for
meeting as the Redevelopment Successor Agency.
CONSENT CALENDAR: There being a Consent Calendar for Council and the
Redevelopment Successor Agency, the Mayor, with the
consensus of the Councilmembers, convened to a joint meeting
at 6:46 p.m., and the two Consent Calendars were heard
concurrently, with all Agency/Councilmembers present.
All items were considered and approved in one motion unless
removed by a Councilmember for discussion.
Members of the public Matt Neco and Denise Barton
commented on various Consent Calendar items.
At the request of Councilmember Brock, Item 3.A. was removed
from the Consent Calendar.
Motion by Agency/Councilmember McKeown, seconded by
Agency/Councilmember Brock, to approve the Consent
Calendar except for Item 3.A., reading resolutions by title only
and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved
by the following vote:
AYES: Agency/Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown,
Brock, de la Torre, Chair/Mayor Pro Tem
McCowan, Chair/Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
5 March 9, 2021
ABSENT: None
PARKING STRUCTURES 3.B. Approval of Third Amendment to Parking Lease
Agreement No. 11143 (CCS) with Macerich, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager
to enter into a Third Amendment to Agreement for the Lease,
Operations and Maintenance of Parking Facilities with Macerich
SMP LP in order to:
(1) Authorize Macerich to negotiate and enter into short-term
license agreements, subject to City approval, to permit pop-
up activities at Parking Structures 7 and 8 over the next 18
months; and,
(2) Approve the installation of six (6) new electrical vehicle
Tesla superchargers at Parking Structure 7 on Level 5.
SANTA MONICA TRAVEL AND
TOURISM
3.C. Approval of Santa Monica Travel and Tourism's
(SMTT) receipt of Loan from Paycheck Protection Program,
was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Santa
Monica Travel and Tourism’s receipt of a $406,253.70 loan
from the Paycheck Protection Program.
REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR
AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
SUCCESSOR AGENCY
CITY INVESTMENT POLICY 3.D. Annual Update on City Investment Policy, was
approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Successor Agency Governing Board:
1. Review and approve the City Investment Policy for
Successor Agency Investments; and,
2. Extend investment authority to the Treasurer of the
Successor Agency, from March 1, 2021 through
February 28, 2022.
MINUTES 3.E. Minutes for Redevelopment Successor Agency
meetings, were approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Successor Agency
approve the minutes of the December 15, 2020 and January 12,
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
6 March 9, 2021
2021 meetings.
ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING
LABOR RELATIONS 3.F. Adoption of Resolution No. 11321 (CCS) entitled “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING THE TENTATIVE
AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE MEMORANDA OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE FIRE EXECUTIVE
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION AND THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR,
RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS –
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, LOCAL 1785”, was adopted.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt the proposed Resolution (Attachment A)
accepting the tentative agreements reached with the Fire
Executive Management Association and the International
Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation
Workers – Transportation Division, Local 1785.
SOCIAL MEDIA 3.G. Award Bid and enter into Agreement No. 11144
(CCS) with Fivecast Corporation for Social Media
Awareness Software, was approved.
Recommended Action
1. Award Bid #281 to Fivecast Corporation for the purchase
of social media awareness software for the Santa Monica
Police Department.
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a
contract with Fivecast Corporation for social media
awareness software in the amount not to exceed $65,500
for one year, with two additional one-year renewal
options in the amount of $65,500 on the same terms and
conditions for a total amount not to exceed $196,500
over a three-year period, with future year funding
contingent on Council budget approval.
MINUTES 3.H. Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting - April 28,
2020, were approved.
MINUTES 3.I. Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting -
February 23, 2021, were approved.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
7 March 9, 2021
RECESS OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR
AGENCY
On order of the Chair/Mayor, the special joint meeting with the
Redevelopment Successor Agency was recessed at 7:20 p.m.,
and the regular meeting of the City Council was reconvened,
with all members present.
CAPITAL PROJECTS 3.A. Adoption of Resolution No. 11322 (CCS) entitled “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS, THE CITY ENGINEER, AND THE
CAPITAL PROGRAM MANAGER TO SIGN NOTICES OF
COMPLETION IN ADDITION TO THE CITY MANAGER”,
was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council:
1. Repeal Resolution 3728 (Attachment A) which
authorizes the Director of Public Works to sign notices of
completion in addition to the City Manager.
2. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment B) to
authorize the Director of Public Works, City Engineer,
and Capital Program Manager to sign Notices of
Completion in addition to the City Manager.
Councilmember Brock pulled this item to ask the question of
staff, does our internal processes take too long, and is this a
management issue. He is concerned that adding more people to
the signature process, if that is really going to speed up the
process or will slow down the projects instead. Is the system not
working now, or is there something else that should be done in
the system instead of just giving more people authorization.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember
de la Torre, to approve the recommended action. The motion
was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, McKeown,
Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan,
Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCES:
ZONING
7.A. Introduction and Adoption of Emergency Interim
Zoning Ordinance No. 2663 (CCS) entitled “AN
EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO
TEMPORARILY PROHIBIT NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
8 March 9, 2021
CITYWIDE AND SINGLE-UNIT DWELLINGS IN
COMMERCIAL ZONES TO PRESERVE POTENTIAL
HOUSING SITES IN PREPARATION OF THE 6TH CYCLE
HOUSING ELEMENT”, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and adopt an
Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance temporarily prohibiting,
with some exceptions, non-residential development citywide and
single-unit dwellings in commercial zones.
Members of the public, Noelani Derrickson, Denise Barton, Matt
Stoffer, and Paula Larmore spoke to the recommendation.
Questions asked and answer of staff included: does the current
proposal as worded cover the Tesla lot in the exemption; how
has the recommendation changed; is there a legal reason that this
site is not being considered for housing; are there other sites in
the city that could be considered for housing that are not covered
under this recommendation; is therea reason that there is more
commercial than residential that fall under this ordinance; why
are we doing this interim zoning ordinance; during this period, if
there are some commercial parcel that are considered suitable
sites, can they just be taken off after the Housing Element is
approved; any reason to believe any of the auto dealerships are
likely to turnover during the pendency of the Housing Element;
if automobile row is exempted, that wouldn’t stop a dealership
from building housing, would it; if adapted units were built,
would that count to the RHNA numbers; how long is it
anticipated that staff would need past the 45 days to complete
the Housing Element; explain the industrial conservation district,
and is staff looking into the issue of gentrification; what are all
the dates mentioned, and when does the actual ordinance expire;
is this like spot zoning; are we deceasing the economic vitality
over the long run; if we know already that we’re going to have to
wait until the Housing Element is approved, why is this interim
ordinance only for 45 days; how are the suitable sites
determined, and will those maps be available for viewing; what
does the preliminary inventory report of potential sites include;
would a current dealership be limited under their floor average
ratio (FAR) based on the current buildings on their site; are we
freezing these landlords ability to change their property in the
long-term; how would these dealerships be able to change their
uses more easily; how many projects are pending review, and
how many have approved permits; does Tesla own or are they
leasing the lot; for changes in use, could a warehouse that is
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
9 March 9, 2021
currently used for housing change its use to commercial, and
why was that included; if auto row was exempted, how many
sites would that effect; what changes to the staff
recommendation would it take to capture more of the properties
that have already been somewhat into the process; is it true that
most of the housing developed in the fifth cycle of RHNA,
occurred on sites that had not even been identified in the suitable
sites inventory; how many sites that weren’t on the list were
developed with house; and, if a site is not included in the
inventory, can it still be used for housing.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor
Himmelrich, to adopt the emergency interim ordinance, reading
by title only and waiving further reading thereof, with a change
in the applicability to remove the application for a Planning
entitlement.
The Interim City Attorney read into the record the proposed
change to the ordinance: Section (b) Applications for Projects in
Progress. For projects that do not require a planning entitlement,
any application for a building permit, including plan check,
determines completed on or before January 12, 2021.
Councilmember Davis, proposed a friendly amendment to
exempt dealerships from the ordinance. The motion was not
considered friendly by the maker.
Substitute motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by
Councilmember Brock, to adopt Councilmember McKeown’s
motion, but to add an additional exception for parcels located on
Santa Monica Blvd. between Lincoln and 20th, where the current
uses is an automotive dealership or some ancillary use.
Councilmember Davis proposed an amendment to her substitute
motion to exclude any parcels pending development agreements.
The motion was considered friendly by the seconder.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, McKeown,
Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan,
Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
10 March 9, 2021
SHARED MOBILITY 7.B. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinances
Extending the First Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program,
Repealing the Second Pilot Program, and Amending SMMC
to Remove Prohibition of Class I and Class II E-bikes on the
Beach Bike Path, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Introduce for first reading the proposed ordinance that:
(a) amends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section
3.21.090 to extend the maximum term of the first
Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program from April
30, 2021 to March 31, 2022;
(b) repeals Section 3.22 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code relating to a second Shared Mobility Device Pilot
Program; and (c) amends Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 3.12.600 to remove the prohibition of Class I
and Class II electric bicycles on the Beach Bike Path.
2) Direct staff to solicit and negotiate a contracted model
for shared mobility services in Santa Monica and direct
staff on outcome priorities to guide the contract
negotiation process.
Councilmember de la Torre read for the record “On March 2, I
received from the Santa Monica Climate Action Steering
Committee an email in support of Santa Monica’s shared
mobility program. I responded to the email with the following:
“Thank you for your email. Would CASM be open to
supporting a study of methane emissions etc at Gandara Park.”
When I sent this response, I mistakenly sent it “reply all” which
meant that my response went to all of the other
Councilmembers. My responsive email has been attached to the
agenda with respect to this item, and I am disclosing this now so
that my email communication that mistakenly went to all of the
other councilmembers can be part of the open and public
discussion of this agenda item. Following my email, I did not
discuss this agenda item with any other councilmembers.” After
this I will explain that the email reply all could potentially
violate the Brown Act, but that I believe the disclosure of the
contents of the email and the ability of both the public and other
councilmembers to discuss and consider it as part of the open
session public comment and discussion on this item cure any
Brown Act violation.”
Members of the public Tim Harter, Matt Neco, Kevin
Hernandez, Colin Hughes, Phuong Bui, Daniel Bezinovich,
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
11 March 9, 2021
Marc Danary, Mika Ohiorhenuan, and, Paul Vizcaino spoke to
the recommended action.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: why the delay
to go with contracts with these companies and how soon will
those contracts get executed; moving from a permit to contract
process, will it increase the city’s liability; how fast do scooters
go; what are the differences between the first and the second
pilot, and has there been any upgrades in technology over the
past three years since the first pilot began; if there was more
competition, would that reduce the price for the end user; how
many current operators would be included in the extended pilot,
and how do we expand them; are we tracking the injuries and
liabilities that these companies are responsible for; how does the
city get paid for each use; does staff envision discounts for
residents; in terms of safety, can the city mandate helmets; what
is the minimum age for riders; why is the RFP and contract
process going to take 11 months; does it make sense to put out
the RFP to see if there are more than two companies out there
before making the decision to only go with two operators; are we
able to give preference to businesses invested in the city; could
speed be reduced using geofencing or other means; what are we
doing to make sure that these companies follow the enforced
rules and laws, and are good neighbors to our residents; does the
cost recovery cover the city’s enforcement cost; if the e-scooter
sharing companies aren’t policing themselves, shouldn’t we be
getting more money for enforcement or boot them out of the
pilot; is there a way to get this process completed in less than 11
months; is it possible to institute speed limits or dismount zones;
what is the legal requirement for the timing if direction is given
to reopen the process to increase the number of vendors; how
fast does a non-motorized bike go; how fast does a Class 1 and
Class 2 bike go; how many accidents have there been between
pedestrians and riders on the bike path; could full recovery cost
for enforcement staffing be included for two or four operators as
part of the contract; and, would there be a way to do a
RFPprocess to solicit additional vendors in the second pilot
program to be on-board by July.
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not
limited to: expanding the number of vendors for competition
during this pilot extension; have the process completed more
expeditiously; extend pilot program until June 30, 2021,
opposition to the contract model; and, maybe the transition to a
new system should start in the late Spring, instead of the
beginning of the summer.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
12 March 9, 2021
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember
de la Torre, to introduce for first reading the proposed ordinance
that: (a) amends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.21.090
to extend the maximum term of the first Shared Mobility Device
Pilot Program from April 30, 2021 to June 30, 2021;
(b) repeals Section 3.22 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
relating to a second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program; and
(c) amends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.600 to
remove the prohibition of Class I and Class II electric bicycles
on the Beach Bike Path.
The Interim City Attorney restated the proposed amendments to
the ordinance to include: under the first Pilot Program 3.21.090
would be extended through June 30, 2021, and, amend the
second Pilot Program to basically take effect so that permits
issued pursuant to the second Pilot Program, Chapter 3.22,
should take effect July 1, 2021 and be enforce no later than June
30, 2022, unless extended or terminated by the city. Then
section 3.22.040 would have to be amended if there are more
than three shared mobility operator permits.
Mayor Himmelrich proposed a friendly amendment to not move
forward with the RFP process until July 2023. The motion was
considered friendly by the maker and seconder.
The motion was restated, with the previous amendments,
including expanding the pilot program from four operators
instead of three, and a minor clean-up to move Mobility to
Transit Services.
Councilmember McKeown proposed a friendly amendment to
change the end date for the second Pilot Program to March 2023.
The motion was considered friendly by the maker and seconder.
The motion, with amendments was approved by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, McKeown, Brock,
de laTorre, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Davis, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan,
ABSENT: None
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 7.C. Introduction and First Reading of an ordinance
amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 7.68
Floodplain Management Regulations to Ensure Compliance
with FEMA Guidelines, was presented.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
13 March 9, 2021
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first
reading the attached ordinance amending Santa Monica
Municipal Code Chapter 7.68 (Floodplain Management
Regulations) to ensure compliance with the Federal Emergency
Management Administration guidelines allowing property
owners in Santa Monica the continued ability to purchase flood
insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program.
There was no public comment for this item.
Question asked and answered of staff included, do we have any
choice in this, isn’t it more ministerial.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember
McKeown, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance
reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The
motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown,
Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan,
Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 7.D. Introduction and Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance
Amending Provisions in Article 4 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code Relating to Community Events, Public
Assemblies, Targeted Residential Protests, and Noise to
Promote the Public Safety and Welfare, was pulled from the
agenda by a vote of the Council.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt an urgency ordinance
amending provisions in Article 4 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code relating to community events, public assemblies, targeted
residential protests, and noise to promote public safety and
welfare.
HERO PAY
7.E. Introduction and Adoption of Urgency Ordinance No.
2664 (CCS) entitled “AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADDING CHAPTER 4.65.5 TO THE SANTA MONICA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT HERO PAY FOR
CERTAIN WORKERS PROVIDING ESSENTIAL SERVICES
DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC”, was presented.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
14 March 9, 2021
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan was
excused at 11:31 p.m.
Recommended Action
In accordance with prior Council direction, adopt an urgency
ordinance adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.65.5
to implement hero pay for grocery and drug retail workers in
accordance with the similar hero pay provisions adopted by Los
Angeles County for unincorporated areas of the County.
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan recused herself from this item
because her husband is an employee of the United Freedom
Commercial Workers International Union. She sought formal
guidance from the FPPC, related to items that come before
Council that pertains to UFCWI union members or their staff.
Pending that guidance, out of an abundance of caution, she is
recusing herself from this item.
Councilmember Brock read for the record: “This morning, he
received from the Santa Monica Quaker Meeting, CLUE Santa
Monica/Westside Committee, an email in support of the Hero
Pay ordinance. He responded to the email with the
following: “My father was a retail clerk at Market Basket
(Kroger owned) supermarket in Venice for 15 years and a shop
steward for Local 1442. I will always support our supermarket
employees.” When he sent this response, he mistakenly sent it
“reply all” which meant that his response went to all of the other
Councilmembers. It also went to the council meeting items
mailbox, meaning that it has been attached to the agenda with
respect to this item. He is disclosing this now so that his email
communication that mistakenly went to all of the other
councilmembers can be part of the open and public discussion of
this agenda item. Following my email, he did not discuss this
agenda item with any other councilmembers.“
Member of the public Cindy McQuade spoke to the
recommended action.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by
Councilmember Davis, to adopt the urgency ordinance on first
reading, reading by title only and waiving further reading
thereof, with the change to move the grace period to a fixed date
of April 12, 2021. The motion was approved by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, McKeown,
Davis, Parra, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46
15 March 9, 2021
COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan returned at
11:45 p.m.
13.A. Request of Councilmember Davis that, in order to
promote the creation of more affordable housing, Council
direct staff to explore the possibility of using an affordable
housing overlay such as the one adopted in Cambridge, MA
or the one contemplated by Berkeley, CA. Staff may return
to Council with the requested information/recommendation
as part of the discussion relating to the housing element or as
a separate item, as staff sees fit, was presented.
Member of the public Natalya Zerniskya spoke in support of the
recommended action.
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor
Himmelrich, to approve the recommendation. The motion was
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown,
Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC INPUT: Members of the public Denise Barton and Alan Shannahan,
commented on various local issues.
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at
12:00 a.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1E09114-FDB2-4A57-95CC-0B5BCD1D4A46