Loading...
m20210330_Spec.pdf 1 March 30, 2021 CITY OF SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 30, 2021 A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 5:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 30, 2021, via teleconference pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 at https://primetime.bluejeans.com/a2m/live-event/xeurqxzv 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 CONVENE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:30 p.m., with all members present. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS: 2.A. City Manager's Report: City's New 311 Customer Service Program, was presented. STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: HOUSING ELEMENT 8.A. Council Direction on Draft Concepts and Framework for Housing Element Update, was presented. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council review, discuss, and provide direction to staff on the draft concepts and strategies to include in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to hear the public comment before the staff report presentation. 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: 44476194-75DC-407F-B203-82D0981D8691 2 March 30, 2021 Members of the public Shawn Landres, Nina Fresco, Marc Verville, Anjali Fran Van Katz, Jeremy Bamberger, Lee Kaplan, Joanne Berlin, Denise Barton, Ken Kutcher, Paula Larmore, Carl Hansen, Leonora Camner, Stephanie Cortez, Elena Christopoulos, Joslyn Martinez, Michael Soloff, and Mario Fonda Bonardi spoke to the recommended action. Questions asked and answered of staff included: has staff already addressed those properties with pending applications that are not included on the suitable sites plan; any demographic cross-tabs on why people didn’t live in Santa Monica due to costs; was there anything learned in the outreach to stimulate homeownership, considering the despairing difference between white and people of color; did staff look at a modified TORCA program; under the city’s obligations to Housing and Community Development (HCD), does homeownership versus rentals weigh more; is there any breakdown of where homeownership is for African Americans by zip code; does rent burden and cost burden mean the same thing, is there a difference; is the cost burden broken down by income; has there been any discussion with big employers in the city so that they can potentially partner with the city to create work/job housing; will creating a hiring locally/workforce policy be included in the Housing Element; what is the percentage of city staff workforce that live in Santa Monica; how is the amount of housing vacancies calculated; does SCAG calculate the homeowner vacancies; would it be accurate to say the lower income people have, the more likely they are to be rent burden; how many households are severe rent burden; what does the 2.9% vacancy rate mean; did staff look at applying the overlay residential properties; is there any idea of the percentage of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) being built for the open rental market; are the economics being studied about those who are building ADUs; it is accurate that with a 20% inclusionary rate, even with the downtown standards, it’s labeled marginal, which doesn’t sound like we’re encouraging affordable housing; if additional height and floor average rate (FAR) incorporate into the housing ordinance, would further studying need to happen in order to increase housing; any idea of height and FAR to make the boulevards more likely to increase inclusionary housing; how much of the newer units were paid for using the in-lieu fees; 35% is R1, but only houses 13% of the city’s population, what is the geographic makeup for the Pico neighborhood and Ocean Park neighborhood and how many people are housed; how much housing is produced with some type of government aid or public financing; does the $700K per unit, include the land cost; how much would the unit cost, if it didn’t include land cost; is there a discussion on how much housing could increase if we use city-owned land; based on current zoning capacity, using all of the city-owned land, could we meet our affordable housing requirement; is there any way to incentivize private property owners to give the city the first opportunity to purchase their property for housing; has there been any cost analysis to get affordable housing built on an onsite DocuSign Envelope ID: 44476194-75DC-407F-B203-82D0981D8691 3 March 30, 2021 property instead of an in-lieu fee for an offsite property; in light of the new requirement, where among those staff options are options to create housing in the R1; does staff have specific proposals to build affordable housing in the R1 neighborhoods; how did some properties end up on the suitable sites list and others didn’t; in Option B, has any of the property owners been contacted; are there any consideration to some of the federal proposals, and if those federal bills are approved, is staff ready to take advantage of those funds for affordable housing; if we use the LUCE overlay, add a Cambridge overlay, would that meet the RHNA requirement; is there potentially the ability to build in a homeownership program with developers as an incentive to build units with a mixture of affordable and market-units on a smaller parcel; have we considered that people who are lower income are more likely to use transit; why aren’t all of the commercial zoning being rezoned for residential use; the excess of parking lots (dealerships) don’t have to be located in the middle of the city, do they; would standards in Option 1 apply to citywide or just downtown; if offsite housing was allowed, would there be a way to make sure that there is not overconcentration in environmental justice areas; is the concept to have a simple formula that everyone could understand; how would the city look for a source of funding for the first right to refusal plan like in San Francisco; could you deed restrict a portion of a parcel to build an ADU on a property as an incentive; would there be specific restrictions on a property that is a deed restricted ADU; community land trust, is it feasible, and would it help, also with a rent to buy; is it being looked at to incentivize adaptive reuse of office spaces; why are square foot rental the same in residential and commercial at this time, why isn’t one higher; how many existing building units will have to be demolished to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers; is it true that the maximum bonuses is three stories, if it’s 100 percent affordable housing; what is the criteria for an environmental justice area; are there any mitigations for housing close to environmental issues; how is it determined that the vacancy fee would be too costly to assess; can the city’s infrastructure handle an additional 8,889 units; is 125% of area medium income (AMI) the missing middle in Santa Monica; is there any thought of having an emergency fund to help renters use on a one-time basis to keep them in their homes; do we know how many renters owe rent based on the moratorium during the pandemic; how can smaller renters be incentivized to remain in business; if in good faith, the city makes plans, including city- owned land, and the city goes to the County and State, but we don’t have the money to produce housing, what will happen; going forward, after we get our Housing Element approved, and we don’t meet the progress, what is the penalty for not meeting our goals; is there a risk of being sued if the city is not in compliance with SB35; even with the density bonus, at Bergamot, how much affordable housing could we get with a 1% FAR; how likely are we going to be able to reach the RHNA goals, if all of the city-own land is used to build; if the no need to maximum inclusionary housing language is DocuSign Envelope ID: 44476194-75DC-407F-B203-82D0981D8691 4 March 30, 2021 removed from the proposal, will we be able to write a housing element that would pass mustard with HDC; how many pending projects are there, and how many are in production; and, is it possible to up-zone on an as-needed basis. Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to: Agree with 100% Affordable housing, but don’t want to preclude to save the arts locations; if committed city-owned, then the city would meet the RHNA requirement; hesitant to support not maximizing inclusionary housing; do not support adding to developer’s receiving bonuses to build; maximizing market rate inclusionary housing; support open space on city land; supports ADUs and JADUs; cautious that by building, infrastructure will need to increase; Bergamot may need to be changed, and the arts need to be preserved on the first floor; look at other alternatives that were mentioned tonight should be considered as well; protect public space and parks; how to sustain families; expand the diversity plan to include families; look at TORCA 2.0 to encourage homeownership; want to ensure that the city is committed to doing the long-term work to provide affordable housing; keeping production out of areas that are already overburdened with affordable housing and/or any housing; opposed to increasing density in the Pico neighborhood; a need to reflect the very real need to affirmatively further fair housing; when looking at inclusion and diversity, take into consideration all residents who live in Santa Monica, and don’t penalize those who still want to have their own space in the R1 zones; and, concerned about modifying R1 zones, and how it would further densify those neighborhoods. Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre, to commit every public site to 100% affordable housing; priority 100% affordable housing; no need maximize inclusionary housing; maintain existing policies; have an ad hoc committee through the production of the Housing Element; get funding from the Federal government and the County to help with building affordable housing; and, doing units for purchase might be something to explore. Interim City Attorney Cardona read the motion by Mayor Himmelrich, with modifications into the record. “Compliant Housing Element that satisfies Affirmatively furthering Fair Housing requirements. Prioritize 100% affordable housing on City-owned land (with consideration for use by artists or as open space). Selection Option B for distribution of potential housing sites, with consideration of zoning changes necessary to incentivize housing relative to commercial. Pursue 100% affordable housing overlay zone with exception of environmental justice and previously redlined zones. Explore diverse opportunities for affordable home ownership and transition from renters to owners by residents. Explore ADU incentives in R1 areas, including potential for deed-restricted DocuSign Envelope ID: 44476194-75DC-407F-B203-82D0981D8691 5 March 30, 2021 ADUs. Promote diversity and inclusion in every neighborhood in Santa Monica. The motion was considered friendly by the seconder. Councilmember Davis proposed a friendly amendment to include a mid- year adjustment, should the city find that we are not hitting our goals. The motion was not considered friendly by the maker. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: Councilmembers Brock, McKeown, Davis, Parra ABSENT: None Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to approve “Compliant Housing Element that addresses historic discrimination and satisfies Affirmatively furthering Fair Housing requirements. Prioritize 100% affordable housing on City-owned land (with consideration for use by artists or as open space). Selection Option B for distribution of potential housing sites, with consideration of zoning changes necessary to incentivize housing relative to commercial. Pursue 100% affordable housing overlay zone with exception of environmental justice and previously redlined zones. Explore diverse opportunities for affordable home ownership and transition from renters to owners by residents. Explore ADU incentives in R1 areas, including potential for deed-restricted ADUs. Explore options for more affordable housing in areas that previously excluded such housing, including, but not limited to voluntary split/duplexes with affordable covenants. Promote diversity and inclusivity in every neighborhood in Santa Monica. Motion to amend by Councilmember McKeown to change the last part of the motion to include “Explore options to densify areas that historically excluded diverse populations and affordable housing, to increase equitable and affordable housing access, including but not limited to voluntary lots splits/duplexes with affordability covenants. Promote diversity and inclusion in every neighborhood in Santa Monica.” The amended language was considered friendly by the seconder. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers McKeown, Davis, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: Councilmembers Parra, Brock, de la Torre ABSENT: None DocuSign Envelope ID: 44476194-75DC-407F-B203-82D0981D8691 6 March 30, 2021 Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to give direction to staff when they bring back the Interim Zoning Ordinance on April 13th, that they omit the commercial projects that are in the pipeline, which staff has determined won’t help the Housing Element. 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 COUNCILMEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS: LANGUAGE INITIATIVE 13.A. Request of Mayor Pro Tem McCowan and Councilmember Davis that, in an effort to reach our equity and inclusion goals and ensure that equity and inclusion are woven into everything we do, we ensure that language justice has a prominent place in our efforts. To that end we ask that, in accordance with Council’s most recent priorities regarding equity and inclusion, Council direct staff to return with an ordinance creating a biennial language access plan focused on ensuring that: (1) Information that is disseminated by the City of Santa Monica in English, including websites, blogs, social media posts, press releases, forms, instructions, or other materials or information relating to community updates and information, shall also be provided in Spanish; (2) Spanish language interpretation services and support are required at all city meetings and events; (3) implementation progress is tracked and reported biannually to track usage by residents; (4) a language access coordinator is identified as part of our equity and inclusion initiatives; (5) the City seeks to create standards by which City contracts and partners can offer the same accessibility as it pertains to their work with the City; and (6) funding for these actions is prioritized in the upcoming biennial budget in alignment with the most recent Council priorities regarding equity and inclusion, was presented. Member of the public Denise Barton, spoke on the recommended action. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, seconded by Councilmember Davis, 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: 44476194-75DC-407F-B203-82D0981D8691 7 March 30, 2021 SMMUSD 13.B. Request by Council Member Brock and Mayor Himmelrich that the City forward the recommendations by the Recreation and Parks Commission in its Letter to Council dated March 19, 2021 regarding planned future improvements to SMMUSD elementary and middle school campuses. The Commission’s letter references the treatment of existing open and recreational space in plans currently being developed for those campuses. The City requests that the SMMUSD School Board consider these recommendations by the Recreation and Parks Commission in its current planning discussions, was presented. Member of the public Jon Kean spoke on the recommended action. Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to approve the recommendation. 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 ZERO EMISSION DELIVERY ZONE 13.C. Request of Mayor Pro Tempore McCowan and Councilmember Davis that, to promote our community’s economic recovery and to help local restaurants and businesses safely reach their customers, Council direct staff to return on April 13 or as soon thereafter as possible with an amendment to the remotely controlled delivery device ordinance to allow remotely controlled devices participating in the Zero Emission Delivery Zone program to serve businesses in all parts of Santa Monica. Speed limits, weight limits and other operational requirements that apply within the zone should apply throughout Santa Monica, was pulled. Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to pull this item, and bring it back at a later meeting. 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 ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 1:56 a.m. in memory of Bill Mortensen. ATTEST: APPROVED: DocuSign Envelope ID: 44476194-75DC-407F-B203-82D0981D8691 8 March 30, 2021 Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich City Clerk Mayor DocuSign Envelope ID: 44476194-75DC-407F-B203-82D0981D8691