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