m20220621 1 June 21, 2022
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2022
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 6:09 p.m.,
on Tuesday, June 21, 2022, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: City Manager David White
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE
On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 6:09 p.m., with all
members present. Councilmember Brock led the assemblage in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
REPORT ON COUNCIL
TRAVEL
There was nothing to report on Council travel.
STAFF
ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:
COUNCIL RULES
8.A. Adoption of Resolution No. 11427 (CCS) entitled “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA AMENDING THE RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE
FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 11418 (CCS)”, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Provide direction to staff regarding changing the time limit(s) for
public comment;
2. Provide direction to staff regarding order for hearing both in-person
and remote public comment and the discontinuation of the time
donation to another speaker policy upon implementation of hybrid
meetings;
3. Provide direction to staff regarding the continuation of Boards and
Commissions to meet quarterly and remotely until the end of
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC740A2A-2973-481C-A9B6-6D0F4519B04A
2 June 21, 2022
calendar year 2022 or until the end of the 1st quarter of 2023;
4. Implement hybrid City Council meetings beginning with the first
regular Council meeting in September, pending budget approval of
staffing; and
5. Adopt the attached proposed resolution amending the City
Council’s Rules of Order and Procedure.
Member of the public Denise Barton, spoke to the recommended action.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: why is the General public
comment separated from the Agenda public comment; does the public get
to split up their six minutes more than the two minutes; why is general
public comment ahead of public comment on the agenda; what are the legal
items that would need to be heard separately as a public hearing; will
members of the public have an opportunity to speak after the presentation is
made from staff; if someone starts talking, are we going to be able to just
stop them if they veer off on the a different item; and, can we give people
the option to either speak at the beginning of the item, or allow them to
speak later when the item is called.
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to:
move the general public comment up above the public comment for Closed
session, special agenda items and consent calendar; hear the non-public
speakers first when we go to hybrid meetings; okay to move general public
input at the beginning with closed session, special agenda, and consent, but
leave the public comment to be heard with the item; to make the meetings
more efficient, we need to move the public comment to the beginning of
the meeting, especially once we go hybrid; on a trial basis, we need to try
something new, and allowing public input earlier in the meeting would be
more efficient, and could possibly increase public interaction; if we give
people too many options, it becomes confusing; boards and commissions
should make their own choices about how often they should meet; and,
time donation should remain for people who are in-person
Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to
direct staff to move General public comment on non-agenda items to the
beginning of the meeting, then receive public comment for Closed Session,
Special Meeting, and Consent items. After Closed Session, hear public
comment on items on the agenda, except those that legally require a public
hearing, for a trial period until December 31st.
Councilmember de la Torre proposed an amendment to continue to allow
donation of time for in-person meetings. The motion was considered
friendly by the maker and seconder.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC740A2A-2973-481C-A9B6-6D0F4519B04A
3 June 21, 2022
The motion, as amended was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, de la Torre,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Brock
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, seconded by Councilmember
Negrete, to provide direction to staff regarding the continuation of Boards
and Commissions to meet quarterly and remotely until the end of the
calendar year 2022 or until the end of the 1st quarter of 2023.
Councilmember Brock proposed an amendment to only continue with
meeting remotely through the end of 2022, then Council can come back and
revisit. The amendment was considered friendly by the maker and
seconder.
The motion, as amended 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, that all
Charter commissions shall meet once a month, that other commissions may
decide how frequently they’ll meet, but no more than once a month, and
Council shall revisit at the end of the year. It was determined that this
motion was not needed.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to
implement hybrid City Council meetings beginning with the first regular
meeting in September, pending budget approval of staffing. 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 Davis, to
adopt the resolution, as amended, amending the City Council’s Rules of
Order and Procedure.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC740A2A-2973-481C-A9B6-6D0F4519B04A
4 June 21, 2022
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Negrete, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Brock
ABSENT: None
HOUSING ELEMENT 8.B. Housing Element Draft Redline Revisions, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to transmit draft redline
revisions to the adopted 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Update to
the California Department of Housing and Community Development for
review and comment.
Member of the public Denise Barton and the Mayor read the Housing
Commissions comments into the public record on the recommended action.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: if we put a microscope on
Nielsen Way, what is the potential maximum height limit on our publicly
owned land for affordable housing; on the private land on Main Street,
what would be the maximum, with density bonus; what about on Wilshire
Blvd, what is the zoning; if these projects are submitted, and everything is
in order, would that not be subject to City Council review, but instead
would only be subject to Planning department review; is there anticipation
that we could get more 100% affordable housing on city land; if we are
looking at this from a residence view, in 2030, are they looking at a more
dense city; are “out of compliance” consequences a reality or only an
enforcement threat; is there any movement amongst other cities in the state
who have pledge to fight the Department of Housing Community
Development’s (HCD) requirements; have there been any cities that have
been successful fighting the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
allocation; would they not approve our 11,000, even though they are
requiring 13,000; is the state of California still not providing any funding to
help with building; does the buffer help protect us; what is the maximum
height on Main Street for the parking lots; if affordable housing was built
there, would the parking have to be replaced, and what happens to that
revenue; what happens to traffic and parking, once this additional housing
is completed; will all of these projects come before the City Council for
approval, where the infrastructure, traffic, and parking issues could be
addressed; why aren’t there more of the proposed affordable units being
placed around the city, instead of placing the largest concentration in the
Pico neighborhood; is there a document that shows where there is currently
affordable housing, and what are the impacts; what is the impact of cost
and gentrification as this plan gets implemented; what city land do we have
large enough in the city that can make up the recommended 1,800 units that
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC740A2A-2973-481C-A9B6-6D0F4519B04A
5 June 21, 2022
is currently being proposed at Bergamot; has there been any idea on what
could be used at the old Heinz building, and could that be used to build
affordable housing; have there been any conversations about the drought,
and the impact of building the required housing; is there a reason the city is
not pushing to have more TORCA type programs to allow residents
homeownership; for zoning, can we protect greenspace and build in those
amenities; what is some of the upzoning for housing potential in areas that
have not accommodated housing in the past; at 4th & 5th and Arizona, with
the number of proposed units, will there still be space for green space, first
floor leases, and other amenities; has anyone looked at using the Big Blue
Bus location as a city site to build housing instead of building at Bergamot;
what would be the process for a city site to be used for housing, would that
require the surplus act in any way; regardless of if we have water or not,
won’t the people seeking housing, just move to other cities looking for
housing; the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) being built north of
Montana are not being placed on the rental unit list, are they; would it be so
terrible to have one or two triplexes built in the high resource areas (R1);
why not just get rid of minimum parking requirements in the city; have we
done a feasibility study that shows, if we use the 5/5/5 configuration, that
we will not be creating a constraint on building housing using state density
bonus law; is there any reason not to grant non-profits as first refusal rights
all over the city; where are the suitable sites located throughout the city; if
this draft housing element is submitted to HCD, and they give a conditional
approval, is there any sense if we will be able to get an extension; what can
we expect to happen in the next six months, if we approve this tonight; how
many CA cities are out of compliance with the HCD, and are any of the
cities formulating and fighting back.
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to:
residents want to know why isn’t the city fighting HCDs RHNA allocation;
concern that the largest part of the proposed 1880 units being built are in
the Bergamot, Pico neighborhood; more density on residential, creates
more gentrification; a contradiction that we have a water shortage
statewide, but the state is requiring cities build all of this additional
housing; find an opportunity to reboot the TORCA plan to allow residents
to build generational wealth; it’s upsetting to hear of affordable housing
being built in Bergamot instead of having it built where the maintenance
warehouse currently is; concerns about having no parking for family units;
look at other areas for housing to create a quality of life for people who
can’t afford to live here, when looking at height, FAR, etc.; look at
TORCA options as a feasible option for some older private owned
buildings; what is being proposed is not going to work; we have our own
good plan, that would work and create affordable housing; this feels like an
intellectual exercise; appalled by the way the state is forcing us to do this,
it’s just wrong; important to incorporate green space in this plan; maybe
consider a rent-to-own option; not having parking does not decrease rent;
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC740A2A-2973-481C-A9B6-6D0F4519B04A
6 June 21, 2022
some of the residents want to challenge HCD, because it will change the
essence of what is Santa Monica; regardless to what we decide tonight, a
lot of this is theoretical; and, we may look back four years from now, and
realize that HCD is not able to enforce it.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to
adopt the staff recommendation. The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra
ABSENT: None
Councilmember Davis, voted no because she felt the one area that has not
crossed the bar has been affirmatively furthering fair housing. Need to look
at ways in which we can produce more traditional multi-family housing in
R1 zones. Direction to come back with a plan to rezone the R1s in some
compacity or provide a 100% affordable housing overlay that would apply
to R1 zones that would give us the possibility to building multi-family
housing in the existing R1 zones. That would get us over the hump in
terms of affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Councilmember Parra, voted to no, because her concern is the Bergamot
being selected.
Councilmember Brock, voted no because of concern that while we approve
the Housing element, simultaneously, we should do our best to fight the
unfairness of this, and we need to stand up for the residents of our staff.
We should do our best to join other cities to reconsider what is being put on
our city.
Councilmember de la Torre, voted no because he thinks there’s an
opportunity here to create a robust program to create a homeownership
program, discuss resident displacement, and create more moderate rate
housing to help alleviate gentrification. Would like to see more ideas on
creating a Pico Neighborhood Zoning District planning.
Councilmember Negrete, voted no because this plan does not address the
fair housing issue. It doesn’t address equity, diversity and inclusion issues
that exist. We need to look at open court and less high, density units for
families. Concerned about displacement of residents. Also, there has not
been enough time to digest all that is being presented, with the expectation
for Council to just approve this because of the pressure from HCD.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to
reconsider the main motion.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC740A2A-2973-481C-A9B6-6D0F4519B04A
7 June 21, 2022
The motion to reconsider 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 Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember de la
Torre, to transmit draft redline revisions to the adopted 6th Cycle (2021-
2029) Housing Element Update to the California Department of Housing
and Community Development for review and comment, with on-going
work on concerns expressed by Council. The 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 her no vote because she continues to have
concerns that this is not a compliance draft, simply because it’s deficient in
the area of affirming furthering fair housing, and concerns of the
constraints which is political will relating to minimum parking
requirements, implementation of state density bonus law, and other matters
previously stated that need to be addressed.
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 10:32p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC740A2A-2973-481C-A9B6-6D0F4519B04A