m20210511.pdf 1 May 11, 2021
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 11, 2021
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 5:30 p.m.,
on Tuesday, May 11, 2021, via teleconference pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 at
https://primetime.bluejeans.com/a2m/live-event/eawbaucd
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre
Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: Interim City Manager Lane Dilg
Interim City Attorney George Cardona
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
ANNOUNCEMENT Mayor Himmelrich announced that Items 1.D., 1.E., 1.F. and 3.C. were
removed from the agenda by staff, prior to the 72-hour posting of the
agenda.
CLOSED SESSIONS
There was no public comment on closed sessions.
Councilmember de la Torre announced that he will be recusing himself
from Item 1.G. for the reasons he previously stated at the April 13th and
April 27th Council meetings.
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 5:34 p.m., to consider
closed sessions and returned at 7:07 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 Government Code
Section 54956.9(d)(1): Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City v.
City of Santa Monica, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
20STCP03106.
The Interim City Attorney advised that this litigation relates to the
SMCLC’s claims that the City’s decision in July 2020 to proceed with
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
2 May 11, 2021
negotiations with the developers of a proposed project on parcels located at
4th and 5th and Arizona in Santa Monica violated the Surplus Lands Act.
The City does not admit the allegations in SMCLC’s lawsuit and does not
agree with the merits of SMCLC’s claims, which were rendered moot by
the Council’s December 15, 2021 decision to terminate negotiations with
the developers. SMCLC has dismissed its complaint but has filed a motion
seeking attorneys’ fees. The City does not admit to the allegations nor agree
with the merits of SMCLC’s motion for attorneys’ fees, but to avoid the
expense and burden of further litigation, the City Attorney’s Office
recommended settlement in the amount of $115,000.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, to
approve Settlement Agreement No. 11152 (CCS), in the amount of
$115,000. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Brock, McKeown, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember de la Torre
ABSENT: None
1.B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(d)(1): Jones-Thomas v. City of Santa Monica, Los
Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC691476.
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable
action taken.
1.C. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(d)(1): Richard v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles
Superior Court, Case No. 19STCV22178.
The Interim City Attorney advised that the plaintiff, now deceased, alleged
that he suffered severe spinal injuries and partial paralysis when he fell
from his seat on a Big Blue Bus on October 17, 2018, and that the fall was
the result of the bus making a right turn at too high a speed. The City does
not admit the allegations, but to avoid the expense and burden of further
litigation, the City Attorney’s Offices recommended settlement in the
amount of $125,000.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to
approve Settlement Agreement No. 11153 (CCS), in the amount of
$125,000. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock, de la Torre,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
3 May 11, 2021
Councilmember de la Torre
was excused at 6:25 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
1.D. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Gov. Code Section
54956.9(d)(1): Unfair Practice Charge, Administrative Team
Associates v. City of Santa Monica, Public Employment Relations
Board, Case No. LA-CE-1495-M; Unfair Practice Charge,
Administrative Team Associates v. City of Santa Monica, Public
Employment Relations Board, Case No. LA-CE-1507-M.
This item was removed at the request of staff.
1.E. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Gov. Code Section
54956.9(d)(1); Unfair Practice Charge, Santa Monica Firefighters
Local 1109 IAFF v. City of Santa Monica, Public Employment
Relations Board, Case No. LA-CE-1514-M.
This item was removed at the request of staff.
1.F. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Gov. Code Section
54956.9(d)(1); Unfair Practice Charge, Municipal Employees
Association v. City of Santa Monica, Public Employment Relations
Board, Case No. LA-CE-1510-M.
This item was removed at the request of staff.
1.G. 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 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
4 May 11, 2021
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; John Doe #17 v. City of Santa Monica, Santa
Monica PAL, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
21STCV07070; John Doe #18 v. City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica
PAL, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 21STCV08464.
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable
action taken.
SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS:
Councilmember de la Torre
returned at 7:03 p.m.
2.A. Proclamation: Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage
Month, was presented by the Mayor.
2.B. Proclamation designating May 16 – 23, 2021 as National Public
Works Week, was presented by the Mayor.
CONSENT CALENDAR: All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a
Councilmember for discussion.
There was no public comment on the various Consent Calendar items.
At the request of Councilmember de la Torre, Item 3.F. was removed from
the Consent Calendar.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember
Brock, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Items 3.C. and 3.F.,
reading resolutions 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
OLYMPIC WELL FIELD 3.A. Award Request for Proposal #286 and Enter into Agreement
No. 11154 (CCS) with ICF International for Olympic Well Field
Groundwater Monitoring Professional Services, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award RFP# 286 to ICF International to perform regulatory
mandated groundwater monitoring and studies related to
groundwater management in the Olympic Well Field and for
adaptive management of the City’s groundwater resources to help
achieve the City’s water self-sufficiency goals for the Public Works
Department; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
5 May 11, 2021
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement
with ICF International in an amount not to exceed $1,675,130 for
three years, with two additional one-year renewal options in a total
amount not to exceed $1,329,952 for the two years, on the same
terms and conditions, for a total amount not to exceed $3,005,082
over a five-year period.
CLEAN ENERGY 3.B. Award Bid #4404 and Enter into Agreement No. 11155 (CCS)
with Clean Energy Fuels Corporation for Purchase of Renewable
Liquid Natural Gas, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award Bid #4404 to Clean Energy Corporation to provide
Renewable Natural Gas fuel for the Santa Monica Department of
Transportation.
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement
with Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, in an amount not to exceed
$5,871,932 over a five-year period, which includes a 15%
contingency and a 2.5% annual cost escalator, with future year
funding contingent on Council budget approval.
MORTUARY SERVICES 3.C. Award Sole Source Contract to Beacon Mortuary for
Embalming, Cremation, Decedent Care, and Transportation Services,
was removed at the request of staff.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute an agreement with Beacon Mortuary for embalming,
cremation, decedent care, transportation of decedents, and funeral service
assistance for the Public Works Department. This recommended award is
made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.250(d) and is for a total amount not
to exceed $350,000 with future year funding contingent on Council budget
approval.
1121 22ND STREET 3.D. Adoption of Resolution No. 11329 (CCS) entitled: “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE FINAL PARCEL MAP
FOR PARCEL NO. 73727 TO SUBDIVIDE A PROPERTY AT 1121 22nd
STREET”, was adopted.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
accepting and approving Final Parcel Map No. 73727 for a three-unit
condominium project at 1121 22nd Street.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
6 May 11, 2021
CYBERSECURITY 3.E. Award Professional Services Agreement No. 11156 (CCS) to
RSI Systems Inc. for Cyber-Security Resource, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award Cybersecurity Resource RFP to RSI Systems Inc., to assist
with the continued development of a robust cybersecurity program
to properly safeguard City assets.
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement
with RSI Systems, in an amount not to exceed $525,000 over a
three-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council
budget approval and additional grant funding.
3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts &
Budget Actions section of this report.
MINUTES 3.G. Minutes for the City Council - Regular and Special Meeting -
Apr 27, 2021 5:30 PM, were approved.
HOMELAND SECURITY 3.F. Authorization to accept the 2020 Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI) Grant Funds for Homeland Security Projects and enter into a
Subrecipient agreement with the City of Los Angeles, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the amount
of $2,164,108.00 from the 2020 Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI) for homeland security projects in the Police, Fire, and
Information Services Departments, and to accept all grant renewals.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to
accept the grant and all grant renewals.
3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts &
Budget Actions section of this report.
This item was pulled by Councilmember de la Torre to ask questions of
staff.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: who owns the data that is
pulled and how is it used; how long is the data retained, and is that period
of time justifiable to complete investigations; and, what is this product and
how is it used.
Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember
Brock, to approve the recommended action.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
7 May 11, 2021
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
ORDINANCES:
REMOTE CONTROL
DELIVERY DEVICES
7.A. Second Reading And Adoption Of Ordinance No. 2672 (CCS)
Of entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 3.12.1055 TO ALLOW THE CITYWIDE OPERATION OF
REMOTE-CONTROLLED DELIVERY DEVICES BY OPERATORS
PARTICIPATING IN THE ZERO EMISSIONS DELIVERY ZONE PILOT
PROGRAM”, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council waive reading in full and adopt the
attached Ordinance.
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to
adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading
thereof. 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
STAFF
ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:
AFTER ACTION REPORT
8.A. OIR Group Independent After-Action Report and Evaluation
Regarding Events Leading To, During, and Following May 31, 2020,
was presented.
Recommended Actions
Staff recommends that the City Council:
(1) Receive OIR Group’s Independent After-Action Report and
Evaluation Regarding the Events Leading To, During, and
Following May 31, 2020 (the “Report”);
(2) Direct the Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”) to prepare a
response to the Report indicating the degree to which SMPD accepts
each of the recommendations made and setting out a plan for
implementation; and
(3) Direct staff to develop a plan, including oversight by the Public
Safety Reform and Oversight Commission, for independent
evaluation and public reporting on the status of SMPD’s
implementation of the recommendations.
Members of the public Jan Ludwinski, Denise Barton, John Medlin, Joann
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
8 May 11, 2021
Berlin, Clay Claiborne, and, Isabel Story spoke to the recommended action.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: is it unusual to find out
that so many body worn cameras were not activated; was there any pattern
to the cameras that weren’t turned on, were they more at the protest or the
looters; is there any sense in Santa Monica that body worn cameras are only
worn 50% of the time, or was something unusual on that particular day;
why weren’t there 100 additional officers instead of the 20, and how did
that decision get made; were there any conversations about the fact that
there wasn’t a second drone available, when the first drone was not
working to report live feed to dispatch; nobody reviewed the body cams
until a month ago; was there accountability by SMPD for the officers who
never turned on their body cams or used excessive force that day over the
past 11 months; was SMPD going to deliver an after-action report without
viewing the body cam video back in July or August; provide any insight as
to the reasoning the Police did not address the significant looting and
rioting happening in the city; the Police Captains who remain, were they
retrained, do they understand their responsibility to respond differently if
there was a next time; what can our Police department and our city do in
those 44 recommendations to build the trust in the community; blame for
the lack of an initial after-action report lies solely with whom; who knew
what and when, because there was allegations that the Council was
directing PD; was there anything beyond the Chief of Police emailing the
Council to say that she was handling everything; is there any explanation to
help understand the challenges for resources and training, or was it just
poor planning; what was the exact number of officers we provided for
mutual aid for surrounding municipalities; based on experiences with other
departments, are there mutual aid opportunities inside of dispatch; is our
EOC sufficient for a city of our size; was there any evidence that the City
Manager was involved in making budget decisions to only authorize 20
additional officers; the two Captains that were sent to meet with protestors,
how was that decision made, and what was the reasoning behind that
decision; what was the report back from the Police Officers who were sent
to Beverly Hills on Saturday, and was there any report back and
communications on what they experienced; is there any understanding on
why there was such an exodus of high Police Officials in the first few
months of hiring the Police Chief; what type of accountability is
recommended for those officers who did not turn on their body cameras;
why are there no names listed in the report; with respect to the many issues
identified, can this be considered rookie mistakes, was there a lack of
preparedness on the executive level of the Police in knowing how to deal
with any incidence like this; what do we need to look for in a new Police
Chief; was this also a result of lacking a succession plan; do you think the
looting was preventable; should the Council be integrated into the planning
to help with communication for whenever this type of event were to ever
occur again; what can we do for the mental health and overall health to help
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
9 May 11, 2021
our Police Officers to improve the morale; is there some sort of program
that is designed for Police Officers to help with mental health issues; and,
has the RFP for the Inspector General been issued.
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to:
coordinating this unprecedented event was difficult doing things virtually;
priorities should be broken down into three categories; more transparency
is needed with the community when major events are happening in the city;
for emergency planning, everything should be geared up, and it’s easier to
reduce what’s not needed; mental health help is primary for law
enforcement and surrounding staff; Priorities should include Leadership,
Planning and Use of Force; have PD report back within 90 days, how they
plan to implement the 44 recommendations; concerns that it’s too much to
ask the Public Safety Reform Oversight Commission to return in 90 days,
given that they aren’t having their first meeting until June, as well as they
have already been tasked to complete a list of other items to review.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember
Brock, to pass along all 44 of the recommendations, with the priorities
being Leadership, Planning and Use of Force; that they be passed along to
the Police Department, asking them to come back to the Council in 90
days, reporting how they plan to implement the 44 recommendations; pass
them on to the Commission, asking them to look at the 44 and help Council
decide what more might need to be done, to report back to Council in 90
days with their recommendations.
Mayor Himmelrich proposed a friendly amendment to add to the priorities
Mental Health for the Police Officers. The motion was considered friendly
to the maker and the seconder.
Interim City Attorney Cardona restated the motion, with the amendment:
1) Receive OIR Group’s Independent After-Action Report and Evaluation
Regarding the Events Leading To, During, and Following May 31, 2020
(the “Report”);
2) to direct the Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”) within 90 days
to prepare a response to the Report, setting out a plan for implementation of
the Report’s recommendations, with priorities being leadership, planning,
use of force, and mental wellbeing of police officers; and
3) Direct the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission (PSROC)
within 90 days to review the report consolidating consideration of other
policing issues and setting out additional recommendations for
consideration by Council.
4) to direct staff to develop a plan, based on the reports from SMPD and
PSROC, including oversight by the Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission, for prioritization independent evaluation and public reporting
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
10 May 11, 2021
on the status of SMPD’s implementation of the recommendations.
The maker and seconder accepted the motion read by the Interim City
Attorney.
There were concerns from some Councilmembers about the 90-day
timeline being too short, and to maybe consider 120 days instead.
Councilmember McKeown proposed amending the motion to have the
Police Department come back in 60 days with an Information item and
have the PSFOC report back with a workplan based on the
recommendations, within no more than 90 days. The motion was
considered friendly by the seconder.
The Interim City Attorney read the final motion, with amendments as
follows:
(1) Receive OIR Group’s Independent After-Action Report and Evaluation
Regarding the Events Leading To, During, and Following May 31, 2020
(the “Report”);
(2) Direct the Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”) within 60 days
to prepare a response to the Report, in the form of an information item,
setting out a plan for implementation of the Report’s recommendations,
with priorities being leadership, planning, use of force, and mental
wellbeing of police officers; and
(3) Direct the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission within 60
days after the issuance of the information item to review the information
item and prepare a work plan for consolidating their consideration of other
policing issues and setting out additional recommendations for
consideration by Council; and,
(4) Direct staff, working with the Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission, to develop a plan, including oversight by the Public Safety
Reform and Oversight Commission, for prioritization, independent
evaluation, and public reporting on the status of SMPD’s implementation
of the recommendations.
The motion with the amendments were approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock, de la Torre,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to
Direct staff to ensure that body-cam use is enforced; and, direct staff to
organize outdoor city-wide event for national night out for community to
celebrate coming back together and recognize good work done by police.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
11 May 11, 2021
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
AGENDA MANAGEMENT Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember McKeown, to
hear items 13.A – 13.D. together, as they are all accepting resignations
from boards and commissions. 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
COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
ARTS
13.A. Recommendation to accept Angela Scott's resignation from the
Arts Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy,
was presented.
There was no public comment on this item.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember McKeown, to
accept the resignation with regret. 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
DISABILITIES
COMMISSION
13.B. Recommendation to accept Marielle Kriesel's resignation from
the Disabilities Commission and authorize the City Clerk’s office to
publish the vacancy, was presented.
There was no public comment on this item.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember McKeown, to
accept the resignation with regret. 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
SOCIAL SERVICES 13.C. Recommendation to accept Derek Devermont's resignation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
12 May 11, 2021
COMMISSION from the Social Services Commission and authorize the City Clerk to
publish the vacancy, was presented.
There was no public comment on this item.
Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember McKeown, to accept the
resignation with regret. 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
COMMISSION ON THE
STATUS OF WOMEN
13.D. Recommendation to accept Kelsey O'Hara's resignation from
the Commission on the Status of Women and authorize the City Clerk
to publish the vacancy, was presented.
There was no public comment on this item.
Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember McKeown, to accept the
resignation with regret. 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
BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
13.E. Request of Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmember Brock that
the City Council form an ad hoc committee of 3 council members to
study and make recommendations to the City Council concerning the
boards and commissions structure, including but not limited to:
commission consolidation and reclassification, methods of
appointment, council liaisons, and staffing of commissions, was
presented.
Member of the public Denise Barton and Dolores Sloan spoke on the
recommended action.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember McKeown, 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
13 May 11, 2021
The Mayor opened the floor for nominations.
Councilmembers Brock, Davis and Mayor Pro Tem McCowan were
nominated.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to
appoint Councilmembers Brock, Davis, and Mayor Pro Tem McCowan to
serve as the members of the ad hoc. 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
CITY HALL MURAL 13.F. Request of Councilmembers de la Torre, Parra and Brock that,
as part of the City’s efforts to eliminate and mitigate the vestiges of
white supremacy and racial injustice in the City of Santa Monica, the
City Council direct staff to address community concerns related to the
display of the 1930s Stanton McDonald Wright mural at the entrance
to Santa Monica City Hall. Specifically, the request is that Council
direct staff as follows: In the short term, the City will install a
temporary artistic scrim (light woven or screen material) cover over
the mural to begin recontextualizing the mural prior to July 13th,
when the public is expected to return for Council meetings in City
Hall. In the long-term, the City will, taking into account prior plans
set forth by the Arts Commission and Cultural Affairs, initiate a
community engagement and education process around the
representations depicted in the mural. This process will include
engaging an artist to recontextualize the mural with artwork that does
not whitewash our past but rather celebrates the diverse history of
Santa Monica’s people, culture and its renewed commitment to
acknowledging the movement for equity, justice and respect for all,
was presented.
Members of the public Denise Barton and Jeremy Gonzales spoke on the
recommended action.
Questions asked and answered included: this isn’t about removing the
mural; thoughts about contextualizing the mural, instead of covering it up;
how much is it going to cost to cover up a portion of the mural; and is this
about covering up the mural on the north wall or both murals.
Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E
14 May 11, 2021
Brock, to approve the recommendation.
Mayor Himmelrich proposed a friendly amendment to put mesh up until
the context is created. The motion was not considered friendly by the
maker.
Councilmember Brock proposed a substitute motion to find out what the
cost to put up the mesh, but don’t put anything on top of the mural, and
then start the robust discussion about can it be moved, should it stay,
should there be an explanation, and/or what goes on with it. The motion
failed for a lack of a second.
Councilmember Brock proposed that the same scrim be placed on the south
wall mural as well. The motion was considered friendly by the maker.
The original motion, with the amendment was approved by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember McKeown
ABSENT: None
Councilmember McKeown stated for the record his no vote was because he
believes covering up the mural is the wrong way to start a discussion of
how we should look at works of art in Landmarked buildings in 2021.
What we’re doing here is going down a path of obscuring and forgetting
our past, instead of changing the narrative and recontextualizing what’s on
those walls.
PUBLIC INPUT: There was no public commented on various local issues.
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 12:05a.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 55743FCA-B249-400A-8BD9-67BE94AC4B0E