m20211012.pdf 1 October 12, 2021
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2021
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 5:33 p.m.,
on Tuesday, October 12, 2021, via teleconference pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 361signed by, Governor
Gavin Newsome at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street.
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan (arrived at 6:43 p.m.)
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Lana Negrete (arrived at 8:28 p.m.)
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre (arrived at 5:53 p.m.)
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: Interim City Manager David White
Interim City Attorney Joseph Lawrence
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE
On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:33 p.m., with all
members present except Councilmembers de la Torre, Negrete, and Mayor
Pro Tem McCowan. Councilmember Brock led the assemblage in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
CLOSED SESSIONS
Councilmember de la Torre
arrived at 5:53 p.m.
There was no one present for public comment on closed sessions.
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 5:36 p.m., to consider
closed sessions and returned at 6:32 p.m., with all members present, except
Councilmember Negrete and Mayor Pro Tem McCowan 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): Paul Veglia v. City of Santa Monica, Los
Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV33366.
The Interim City Attorney advised this was a personal injury case where
Mr. Veglia fell on Third Street Promenade near Arizona and sustained
significant injury. The City does not admit these allegations, but to avoid
the expense and burden of further litigation, the City Attorney’s Office
recommended settlement in the amount of $280,000.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
2 October 12, 2021
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to
approve Settlement No. 11214 (CCS), in the amount off $280,000. The
motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
1.B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been Initiated Formally Pursuant to Gov. Code Section
54956.9 (d) (1): James Tatum Jr. v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles
Superior Court, Case No. 19STCV34362
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 Gov. Code Section
54956.9(d)(1): Unfair Practice Charge, Santa Monica Police Officers
Association v. City of Santa Monica, Public Employment Relations
Board, Case No. LA-CE-1535-M.
This item was pulled at the request of staff.
1.D. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Gov. Code Section
54956.9(d)(1): City of Santa Monica et al. vs. 1238 10th Street, LLC, et
al., Case No. 21SMCV01585.
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was pulled 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): Casa Greene, Inc., et al. v. California, et al., Case No.
20STCV3496.
This item was pulled 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): 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;
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
3 October 12, 2021
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
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
This item was pulled 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): City of Santa Monica v. The Insurance Company of the
State of Pennsylvania, et al., LASC Case No. 21STCV36027.
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable
action taken.
SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS:
2.A. Welcome to City Manager David White and Interim City
Attorney Joe Lawrence, was presented.
2.B. Commendations: 2021 Juniors/14U Santa Monica Little League
All-Star team, was presented.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
arrived at 6:43 p.m.
All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a
Councilmember for discussion.
Member of the public Ann Thanawalla commented on various Consent
Calendar items.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to
approve the Consent Calendar, reading resolutions by title only and
waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
4 October 12, 2021
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Negrete
COVID-19 EMERGENCY
PROCLAMATION
3.A. Adoption of Resolution No. 11365 (CCS) entitled “AN
EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.16
OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE RATIFYING THE
PROCLAMATION OF EXISTENCE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY AND
SUPPLEMENTAL PROCLAMATIONS THERETO”, was adopted.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed resolution ratifying the
Executive Order issued by the Director of Emergency Services declaring
the existence of a local emergency in the city of Santa Monica and the
Supplements to that Order.
WATER RESOURCES 3.B. Approval of First Contract Modification to Agreement No.
11215 (CCS) with Alexander's Contract Services for Meter Reading
Services for the Water Resources Division, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute a first modification to contractual services agreement
#4652 in the amount of $360,000 with Alexander’s Contract Services for
meter reading services as an exception to the competitive bidding process,
section 2.24.250 (g), for the Public Works Department. This will result in a
five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed
$610,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
TAX AUDIT SERVICES 3.C. Approval of Second Modification to Professional Services
Agreement with Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates for Sales, Use
and Transactions Tax Audit and Information Services, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute a second modification to agreement #10196 (CCS)
with Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates (HdL) to extend the term of the
agreement for two additional years to provide sales, use, and transactions
tax audit and information services for the City. Payments for this contract
are primarily based on a percentage of revenues recovered for the City
through audits. The estimated $209,000 increase resulting from the two-
year contract extension will be more than offset by the revenues recovered.
This second modification will result in an eight-year amended agreement
with a new total estimated amount of $784,000. Future year funding is
contingent on Council budget approval.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
5 October 12, 2021
TRANSPORTATION
PROJECTS
3.D. Adoption of Resolution No. 11366 (CCS) entitled “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA ADOPTING CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE
PROCEDURES MANUAL CHAPTER 10: CONSULTANT
SELECTION”, was adopted.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution
adopting Caltrans’ policy for consultant procurement for State and Federal
funded transportation projects.
GROUNDWATER STUDY 3.E. Approval of Third Modification to Contract 10631 (CCS) with
Earth Consultants, Inc. for a Differential Interferometry Synthetic
Aperture Radar (DInSAR) study of Groundwater Recharge in the
Santa Monica Basin, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute a third modification to agreement #10631 (CCS) in
the amount of $32,260 with Earth Consultants International, Inc. (ECI) for
a satellite-based groundwater recharge study of the Santa Monica Basin for
the Public Works Department. This will result in a six-year amended
agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $205,000, with future
year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
TRAFFIC GRANT 3.F. Authorization to accept Grant from the California Office of
Traffic Safety for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, was
approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the
amount of $265,000 from the California Office of Traffic Safety for
the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program in the Police
Department.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to
accept the grants and all grant renewals.
3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts &
Budget Actions section of this report.
WATER SERVICES 3.G. Adoption of Resolution No. 11367 (CCS) entitled “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA ADOPTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR
PROVIDING PRIORITY SERVICE TO DEVELOPMENTS WITH
HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE TO LOWER INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
6 October 12, 2021
65589.7”, was adopted.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution on
the prioritization of providing water and wastewater services to residential
developments with affordable housing units.
INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT
SERVICES
3.H. Approval of First Modification to Professional Services
Agreement with RNC Capital Management LLC to provide investment
management services, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #10366 (CCS) with
RNC Genter Capital Management LLC to provide investment management
services for the Cemetery and Mausoleum Perpetual Care Funds extending
the term of the agreement for an additional nine months for a total term of
five years and nine months. Management fees are determined by the value
of the assets under management. Based on the value of the portfolio as of
June 30, 2021, staff estimates the extension of the term of the contract will
result in an additional $78,600 in fees.
INSPECTOR GENERAL 3.I. Award Professional Services Agreement No. 11216 (CCS) with
OIR Group to Serve as Inspector General for the Public Safety Reform
and Oversight Commission, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award RFP# 267 to OIR Group for Inspector General services for
the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission for the City
Manager’s Office;
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement
with OIR Group, in an amount not to exceed $140,000 for one year
(with four additional one-year renewal option(s) in the amount of
$140,000 each, on the same terms and conditions) for a total amount
not to exceed $700,000 over a five-year period with future year
funding contingent on Council budget approval.
AMICUS BRIEF 3.J. Authorization to Join in Amicus Brief in Support of the United
States in State of Arizona, et al. v. United States Department of
Homeland Security, et al., United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, Case No.: CV-21-00186-PHX-SRB, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City to sign on to an
amicus brief to be filed by Los Angeles County and joined by other cities
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
7 October 12, 2021
and counties in support of the appellees (the federal government) in State of
Arizona, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Ninth
Circuit, No. 21-16118.
STREET EASEMENTS 3.K. Adoption of Resolution No. 11368 (CCS) entitled “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA, SUMMARILY VACATING STREET EASEMENTS NORTH
OF AND RUNNING PARALLEL TO OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD
BETWEEN 16TH AND 17TH STREETS”, was adopted.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to
vacate the street easements that currently exist north of and parallel to
Ocean Park Boulevard between 16th Street and 17th Street at the current site
of John Adams Middle School (JAMS).
CITY YARDS 3.L. Approval of Fourth Modification to Design-Build Contract
#10371 (CCS) with Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company for
City Yards Modernization Project, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP) fourth modification to Design-Build
Contract #10371 (CCS) in the amount of $3,300,000 with Hathaway
Dinwiddie Construction Company (HDCC) for design and
construction services of the City Yards Modernization – Package A
Project for the Public Works Department. This would result in a
five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed
$85,523,039.
2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary
change orders to complete additional work within contract authority.
3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts &
Budget Actions section of this report.
MINUTES 3.M. Minutes of City Council - Special Meeting – September 14,
2021, were approved.
ORDINANCES:
DELIVERY ZONE PILOT
PROGRAM
7.A. Second Reading and Adoption Of Ordinance No. 2683 (CCS)
entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 3.12.1055 TO EXTEND THE CITYWIDE OPERATION OF
REMOTE-CONTROLLED DELIVERY DEVICES BY
OPERATORS PARTICIPATING IN THE ZERO EMISSIONS
DELIVERY ZONE PILOT PROGRAM”, was presented.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
8 October 12, 2021
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council waive reading in full and adopt the
attached Ordinance.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to
adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading
thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Brock, de la Torre,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Negrete
STAFF
ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:
HOUSING ELEMENT
Councilmember Negrete
arrived via phone at
8:28 p.m.
8.A. Adoption of 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Update,
was presented.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 11369 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE 6TH CYCLE (2021-2029) HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE”;
2. Adopt Resolution No. 11370 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
MAKING FINDINGS NECESSARY TO ADOPT
THE 6TH CYCLE (2021-2029) HOUSING ELEMENT AND
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM”; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 11371 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADOPTING THE 6TH CYCLE (2021-2029) HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN”
Members of the public Elisa Pastor, Matt Stauffer, Denise Barton, Carl
Hansen, Anjuli Kronheim-Katz, Tricia Crane, Leanor Camner, Aaron
Eckhouse, Daniel Freedman, Natalya Zernitskaya, Michael Soloff and
Tony Joaquin spoke to the recommended action.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: how do we police that the
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the single-unit areas are being used
for additional housing, not just created for family members; did staff find
out how many ADUs are being rented out; how many units are expected to
be built on service lots abut R1 zones; where is upzoning starting, is it from
the LUCE or the current zoning; what happened to the maps and tables with
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
9 October 12, 2021
all of the heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) that are now missing;
reducing parking, is that for all housing or affordable housing, and why not
just get rid of parking all together; is the 50 percent requirement putting
constraints on properties where they are required by the Affirmative
Further Fair Housing (AFFH) programs; was there a decision made to
choose the suitable sites selected in the middle of town where there’s
already a bunch of people living; how aggressive do we need to be to
acquire reasonable affordable housing; maximum caps, why not remove
them from other areas of the city instead of just surface parking lots; is
there any thought about bringing back activity centers; how would the
proposed actions being submitted affect previously proposed and approved
plans; how can a balance between unit mixes happen; how do we keep
from having moderate rate studio apartments; why does it take three years
to perform a request for proposals (RFP); are in-lieu fees based on
geography or are there any limitations; where does right to refuse rights
apply in the city; is there any way that the language can be stronger as it
relates to redlining and discrimination that happened historically; what is
the current fee and projected fee for wastewater, and is the capital
wastewater fee being paid by developers or homeowners; what is Parking
overlay 1; isn’t it more sustainable to use some of the open office space
than building something new; is modular construction accepted in
California; if house of worships are used for building, where will the
congregation park for various events; how are units that don’t require
parking going to handle this, with our lack of experience; was there any
risk analysis to see what affect 9,000 additional units are going to have on
our sustainability plan; how many of the incomplete projects are included
in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers; can the FAR
numbers be locked in at this point, or could we still change them; has there
been any thought to how much of a burden this is going to be
administratively; if the drought continues, will the cost of water increase
for users; there’s no way to control the amount of water used, are sub-
meters specified in our local cost; how can there be no parking requirement
on new buildings; are we still at 15% inclusionary housing; would it be
appropriate to request the state to provide assistance to help pay for the
housing; are there ways to avoid gentrification in the Pico neighborhood;
any way to increase the size of the units to accommodate families; if Santa
Monica is not able to meet its RHNA numbers, is there an option available
to coordinate with other cities to create housing just outside of the city’s
boundaries; how are we going to create more fair, affordable housing for
families; why can’t fair affordable housing be addressed in the Housing
Element, why do we have to wait; how did the conversations with Santa
Monica College, SMMUSD and UCLA play into the reference; can’t we
just remove commercial and instead make everything residential; is there a
way to down-zone a property and just use the commercial to build on top of
it; and, has anyone looked at boosting the number of housing a quarter mile
from transit, instead of half-mile.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
10 October 12, 2021
Staff presented five recommendations that were not in agreement with the
Planning Commission’s recommendations and asked the Council to vote on
those amendments before the main vote on the Housing Element. The five
proposed amendments are as follows:
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Parra, to
make a change to Program 1.F. to not accept the Planning Commission
recommendation that the City shall revise the definition of a Housing
Project in the DCP to be consistent with the Housing Accountability Act
(HAA).
Councilmember Brock, proposed a friendly amendment to move the
deadline from March 31, 2022 to December 31, 2022. On staff’s
recommendation to revisit this later, Councilmember Brock withdrew his
amendment.
The main motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to
accept staff’s recommendation for Program 1.F. to accept staff’s
recommendation that says, “based on the results of the feasibility analysis,
the feasible FARs for housing project range from a minimum 2.75 to 4.0
with heights ranging from 55 feet to 84 feet.”
Councilmember Davis, proposed a friendly amendment to remove the
words FARs up or down. The motion was not considered friendly by the
maker.
The main motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Davis
ABSENT: None
Councilmember Davis stated for the record, her no vote is because the
motion suggests that retaining the option to downzone is not intended to get
us more housing and is a reflection of the fact that we may downzone and
keep housing from being built. It’s not a showing of good faith to our
commitment to build more housing.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
11 October 12, 2021
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to
accept the staff recommendation language for Program 1.J. based on the
results of the feasibility analysis, the feasible FARs for housing projects
range from a minimum 2.75 to 3.25 with heights ranging from 55 feet to 65
feet. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Parra,
Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Davis, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to
approve the staff recommendation for Program 1.K. to include, to establish
that City-owned sites are allowed 100 percent residential use and require
residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area. Additionally,
while not required to meet the shortfall of lower-income units, the Zoning
Ordinance shall be amended to specify additional mixed-used zoning
districts that shall be allowed 100 percent residential uses. The motion was
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan,
to adopt the Planning commission recommendation for Program 2.D
Density Bonus.
A substitute motion by Councilmember Parra, seconded by Councilmember
Brock, to approve the staff recommendation that eliminates the PC
language “If there is an affordability requirement in place that distributes
affordability requirements evenly across income levels, explore ways for
housing providers to maximize incentives and concessions, parking
reductions, and density as set forth in State Density Bonus Law.” The
substitute motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Parra,
Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Davis, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
ABSENT: None
Councilmember Davis stated her no vote for the record is based on the fact
that the language says if there’s a conflict between the distribution of
affordability requirements, and the state density bonus law, that we commit
to find a way to reconcile those in such a way as to maximize housing
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
12 October 12, 2021
Councilmember Parra
excused at 11:25 p.m.
Councilmember Parra
returned at 11:30 p.m.
production. If we don’t adopt the affordability requirements across the
entire scope of affordability, then this wouldn’t even kick in. It was only to
address that issue.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to
address Program 2.E. to accept the staff recommendation to update the
language to include previous direction given earlier by Council.
Councilmember Brock proposed an amendment to change to issue the
second RFP by June 30, 2023. The amendment was accepted by the maker.
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, proposed a friendly amendment to add to the
language “community-serving, commercial and revenue generating uses.”
The amendment was considered friendly by the maker and seconder.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Parra
Motion by Councilmember Davis, moved to approve the Planning
Commission recommendation. The motion died due to no second.
Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember Parra, to
adopt the staff recommendation and not adopt the Planning Commission
recommendation Policy 1.11 Increase Housing Opportunities in Multi-Unit
Residential Zones. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Davis
ABSENT: None
Councilmember Davis stated her no vote for the record was because this
was just to explore the possibility of eliminating unit density caps. I don’t
know why it wouldn’t put something that talked about increasing our
ability to build more housing. In the Housing Element there was no
commitment to do it, and to say we’re not even going to explore it, or the
possibility reflects poorly on our intent to build affordable housing in the
city.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to add
a cover letter to the Housing Element, with inclusion of the preface
received by Council from Michael Soloff and Denny Zane, with the City
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
13 October 12, 2021
Manager and Mayor’s review and edits.
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to
Adopt Resolution No. 11369 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 6TH
CYCLE (2021-2029) HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE.” The motion was
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, to
adopt Resolution No. 11370 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING
FINDINGS NECESSARY TO ADOPT THE 6TH CYCLE (2021-2029)
HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.” The motion was
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to add
to Program 2.C. language to say “includes, but not limited to” and to
change the deadline from March 30, 2022 to December 31, 2022.
Councilmember Brock amended his new deadline to June 30, 2022, to
allow staff more time.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
14 October 12, 2021
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to
adopt Resolution No. 11371 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING THE
6TH CYCLE (2021-2029) HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY’S
GENERAL PLAN,” including the five programs, one policy change, and
one amendment voted on previously.
The motion, with amendments was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Parra,
Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Davis, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
ABSENT: None
Councilmember Davis stated her reason for her no vote is as follows:
I am voting no on the motion to approve the housing element. While I
appreciate the hard work on the part of Planning Commission and other
stakeholders as well as the tremendous amount of work that staff has put
into it, I do not believe that it is a truly compliant housing element. It may
be technically compliant; that’s for HCD to decide. But I do not believe
that this document will lead to meaningful change in our housing policy or
build sufficient housing.
Housing is a human right. We need to build housing to meet our moral
obligation on this issue. But housing also is a climate change issue, a social
justice issue, and a measure of our society’s values.
First, this plan does not affirmatively further fair housing. This
requirement was inserted into the housing element analysis because of the
hundreds of years of discrimination that people have faced. We must
counter that intentional discrimination with equally intentional and
meaningful programs designed to remediate that history. When you look at
this plan to build housing, it leaves a third of our city, the most segregated
part of our city, untouched. Relying on community assembly sites-none of
which are in the R1- is not enough. I understand that the Suitable Sites
Inventory does not propose to build housing in the Pico neighborhood and
that is good. But simply saying that we will not build in the Pico
neighborhood is not enough.
Second, the Suitable Sites Inventory does not meet HCD’s specifications.
Although there is a lengthy discussion about methodology, the inventory
itself does not make any sense. I keep going back to it but I don’t
understand how the El Cholo site is on the inventory and others are not.
Why are some large supermarket sites on the inventory and others are not?
There does not appear to be any discernible reasoning for it.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC
15 October 12, 2021
Finally, this proposal does not adequately address constraints on housing.
For example, the interaction between the AHPP and the State Density
Bonus Law is unclear but it seems like we will not be adopting policies that
will maximize the amount of housing we can build under the state law.
Also, parking is a constrain on housing. But while we are reducing some
parking minimums, we should be eliminating all parking minimums. Our
lack of commitment to really building more housing is exemplified by our
refusal to remove the option to down one out of the language in the
document. I am not convinced that there will be votes to do the upzoning
we need to do to meet out RHNA obligations.
I agree that we should have no problem meeting our market rate housing
obligation. But research reviewed at UCLA shows that building market
rate housing actually reduces rents in nearby areas. Also, I support
building family housing but we need to build all types of housing.
Finally, there is constant reference to this as an unfunded mandate. This is
not an unfunded mandate. The City does not have to build the housing.
For profit and non-profit developers will do that. The City’s obligation is
to facilitate the building of that housing with zoning and other policies. I
don’t think this draft is specific enough on how we are going to do it and I
do not think it is strong enough commitment to taking whatever steps are
necessary to build the housing we need.
PUBLIC INPUT: Members of the public Denise Barton, Jonathan Foster and John Alle
commented on various local issues.
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 12:36 a.m. in
memory of Denise Sargent.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 927223DE-577C-44D6-AFE6-2F990F0E03AC