Santa Monica City Council
July 26, 2022

City of Santa Monica
City Council Meeting
AGENDA

SUE HIMMELRICH
MAYOR

LANA NEGRETE KRISTIN MCCOWAN

COUNCILMEMBER MAYOR PRO TEM

GLEAM DAVIS PHIL BROCK

COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER

CHRISTINE PARRA OSCAR DE LA TORRE

COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER

DAVID WHITE

CITY MANAGER

DOUGLAS SLOAN

CITY ATTORNEY

DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN

CITY CLERK

STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR THAT PROMOTE CIVILITY AT ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS:
• Treat everyone courteously; • Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints; • Listen to others respectfully • Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate; • Exercise self-control • Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions
Meetings are broadcast live on CityTV cable channel 16 and on the internet at santamonica.gov. Cable television re-broadcasts air on Thursday and Saturday at 11:30 AM. The agenda will air on CityTV on Saturday and Sunday at 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and on Monday and Tuesday at 12:30 PM and 6:00 PM.

City of Santa Monica Generated: 7/27/2022 1:13 PM Page 2

RULES OF ORDER FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS (Resolution No.11427(CCS))

WAYS TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT
If you are interested in providing public comment at a City Council meeting, there are several ways to participate:
(1) Written public comment. In lieu of oral public comment, the public is strongly encouraged to submit written public comment on agenda items via email to [email protected]. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be available for online viewing. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments. (2) Oral public comment. Persons wishing to address the City Council regarding items on the agenda must be present and submit their name and address (optional) to the City Clerk before the public comment section is opened for that item or before the public hearing is opened where one is required by law. Register to speak at the Speaker Kiosk prior to the meeting. Remarks from the public are limited to a total of 6 minutes per City Council meeting, with a maximum of 2 minutes and a minimum of one minute per item. Except for the author of the request, public comment on 12-items are limited to 1 minute. Except on Public Input, speakers appearing at the meeting in person, may donate 2 minutes to another person present in-person at the meeting, who may speak for a total of 4 minutes on that item.

Both the donor of time and the designated speaker must register at the Speaker Kiosk in person together.

Oral public comment from any one individual is limited to a total of 6 minutes per City Council meeting, with a maximum of 2 minutes per agenda item; under some circumstances, Council may change the maximum to 1 minute per agenda item.

ORDER OF BUSINESS (may not be changed except by majority vote of the City Council.)

1. General Public Input
(members of the public may address the City Council
only on items not on the agenda, but within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the City).

2. Public Comment for Closed Session, Special
Agenda, and Consent Calendar Items Only
(Commendations and Proclamations presented).

3. Closed Session.

4. Special Agenda Items (City Manager’s Report,
Presentations, etc.).

5. Consent Calendar (All items considered in one
motion unless removed by a City Councilmember for
discussion. Public comment shall be heard prior
to City Council discussion).

6. Public Comment on remaining Agenda Items

7. Study Session.

8. Continued Items.

9. Administrative Proceedings.

10. Ordinances:
• 1
st Reading
• 2
nd Reading

11. Staff Administrative Item.

12. Public Hearings.

13. Reports of Boards and Commissions.

14. Resolutions.

15. Written Communications (other than
Reports of Commission and Officers).

16. Councilmember Discussion Items.

Agendas and reports are accessible on the City's webpage at smgov.net/council/agendas. They are also available at the City Clerk's Office and in alternate formats upon request. For a free email subscription to the City Council Agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or [email protected].

Si desea comunicarse con alguien en español, llame a nuestra oficina al (310) 458-8211 y pida hablar con Esterlina Lugo.

City of Santa Monica Generated: 7/27/2022 1:13 PM Page 3

AGENDAS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

REGULAR MEETING

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1685 MAIN STREET, ROOM 250,
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2022
MEETING BEGINS AT 5:30 PM
WAYS TO PROVIDE REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT:

Written public comment can be submitted via email to [email protected].

Written comments received prior to 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be available online. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
(Please note that Agenda Items may be reordered during the Council meeting at the discretion of the City Council. In accordance with Charter section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present dissents.)

1. PUBLIC INPUT
(Public comment is permitted only on items not on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the agenda, including issues raised under this agenda item.) . Written Comment

2. PUBLIC INPUT (CLOSED SESSION, SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS, CONSENT

CALENDAR)

3. CLOSED SESSIONS

3.A. Conference with Real Estate Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: 1600 Ocean Front Walk, 6,449 sf. ft. (current), Santa Monica, California; City Negotiator: Elana Buegoff, Pier Administrator; Owner of Record: City of Santa Monica; Persons to be negotiated with: Heal the Bay; City of Santa Monica Generated: 7/27/2022 1:13 PM Page 4 Negotiators: Tracy Quinn, CEO and Marslaidh Ryan, Aquarium Director; Under negotiation: Building Lease Terms

3.B. Conference with Labor Negotiator: Government Code Section 54957.6 -- Agency Designated Representatives: City Manager David White and Chief People Officer Lori Gentles; Bargaining Units: ATA-Administrative Team Associates; IBT-California Teamsters Local 911; FEMA-Santa Monica Fire Executive Management Association; FIRE-Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109 IAFF; MEA-Municipal Employees Association; AFSCME Local 4819, Management Team Association; PALSSU-Public Attorneys’ Legal Support Staff Union; PAU- Public Attorneys Union; POA-Santa Monica Police Officer Association; SMART TD-The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Division, Local 1785; STA- Supervisory Team Associates; Coalition of Santa Monica City Employees.

The following is the order of business for items to be heard no earlier than 7:00 p.m.

4. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS

4.A. City Manager Report

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items will be considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.)

5.A. Award Bid and Enter into Agreement with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc., to Prepare a Recycled Water Master Plan
Recommended Action
Staff Recommends that the City Council:

1. Award RFP# 318 to Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc., to provide professional services for the development of a Recycled Water Master Plan;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $363,000 to provide professional services for the development of a Recycled Water Master Plan; and

3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.

5.B. Award Bid and enter into Agreement with Arcadis U.S., Inc. to Update the City's Domestic Water and Wastewater Master Plans
City of Santa Monica Generated: 7/27/2022 1:13 PM Page 5 Recommended Action
Staff Recommends that the City Council:

1. Award RFP# 317 to Arcadis U.S., Inc. to update the City’s Domestic Water & Sanitary Sewer Master Plans for the Public Works Department;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Professional Services Agreement with Arcadis U.S., Inc., in an amount not to exceed $805,160 over a five-year term; and

3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.

5.C. Award Construction Contract to Access Pacific, Inc. for Michigan Avenue Greenway & 20th Street Project
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award Bid #SP2474 to Access Pacific, Inc. for construction services for the Michigan Avenue Greenway & 20th Street Project for the Public Works Department;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Access Pacific, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,110,170 (including a 15% contingency);

3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work within contract authority; and

4. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.

5.D. Adoption of Resolution Making AB 361 Findings Regarding Teleconference Meetings
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution making the findings required by AB 361 to continue teleconference meetings of the City Council and City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces through August 25, 2022.

5.E. Adoption of Resolution Approving Final Tract Map No. 83099 for 710 Broadway
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Final Tract Map No. 83099 for a 61-unit airspace subdivision located at 710 Broadway to allow the commercial and residential components of the project to be separately leased, financed, or sold, the option of 280 residential units to be sold as condominiums, and to vacate a portion of an alley (7th Court).

5.F. Adoption of a Resolution accepting the tentative agreement and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute Memoranda of Understanding with the California Teamsters Local 911 - New Item Received 7/22/2022 City of Santa Monica Generated: 7/27/2022 1:13 PM Page 6 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the proposed Resolution (Attachment A) accepting the tentative agreement and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Teamsters Local 911;

2. Adopt the salary schedule (Attachment B); and

3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.

5.G. City Council - Regular Meeting - Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM - New Item Received 7/22/2022

5.H. City Council - Special Meeting - Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM - New Item Received 7/22/2022

6. PUBLIC INPUT ON REMAINING AGENDA ITEMS

7. STUDY SESSION
No items

8. CONTINUED ITEMS

8.A. Certification of Qualified Initiative Petition Measure to Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools and Adoption of Resolution to Place Measure on the November 8, 2022 Ballot - New Item Received 7/22/2022
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive and file the attached Certification of Qualification regarding an Initiative Measure to Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools by Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 to provide a Third Tier Transfer Tax Rate for Property Transfers of $8,000,000 or more with an Eleven-Member Resident Oversight Committee;

2. Adopt the attached resolution requesting and directing the actions necessary to place the measure on the November 8, 2022 General Municipal ballot.

9. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
No items

10. ORDINANCES
(Public comment is permitted on ordinances for introduction and first reading. No public discussion is permitted on ordinances for second reading and adoption.) City of Santa Monica Generated: 7/27/2022 1:13 PM Page 7

10.A. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend SMMC Sections

3.12.010 and 3.12.600 to allow non-electric pedicabs on Beach Bike-Path and recodify SMMC Section 3.12.380 prohibiting vehicle driving and parking on sidewalks and parkways
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance to do the following: (1) amend SMMC Section 3.12.010, Traffic Regulations, to define “Beach Bike-Path” and “Beach Promenade”; (2) amend Chapter 3.12.600 to permit pedicab operations on the Beach Bike-Path; and (3) recodify Section 3.12.380 prohibiting vehicle driving and parking on sidewalks and parkways.

10.B. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance approving the Ocean Avenue Project Development Agreement - New Item Received 7/22/2022 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

11. STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

11.A. Adoption of a Resolution Placing a Ballot Measure on the November 8, 2022 Ballot That Would Remove Sections 1011 and 1012 from the Santa Monica City Charter - New Item Received 7/22/2022
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) placing a measure on the November 8, 2022 ballot that would remove Sections 1011 and 1012 from the Santa Monica City Charter to allow the City Council to adopt an ordinance to establish and define the powers and duties of the Personnel Board in the Santa Monica Municipal Code; and

2. If the resolution placing an amendment to remove Sections 1011 and 1012 from the City Charter on the November 8, 2022, ballot (Attachment A) is approved, authorize City Council members to file written arguments for or against the measure and direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis.

11.B. Adoption of a Resolution to place a Real Property (Documentary) Transfer Tax revenue measure on the November 2022 Ballot. - New Item Received 7/22/2022 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution to place a transfer tax measure and advisory measure on the November 8, 2022 ballot (Attachment A), which would:
a) Amend Chapter 6.96 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to establish an additional third tier transfer tax rate of $20 per thousand dollars of consideration or property value transferred, which would apply solely to the amount of consideration or value transferred in excess of $8 million, subject to certain exemptions, and be collected in addition to existing transfer tax rates that apply to the entire transfer amount; and b) Allow voters to express their preference that if the Comprehensive Real Property Transfer Tax Measure is adopted, should its additional revenue be used for: (a) services to address homelessness, protect City of Santa Monica Generated: 7/27/2022 1:13 PM Page 8 seniors and low-income residents from housing displacement, and behavioral health; (b) public safety and emergency response teams to address safety issues on City streets and in parks; (c) the reopening and staffing of public libraries; (d) after-school programs for public school children; and (e) crossing guards near public schools; and c) Identify Council Members, if any, who wish to prepare arguments for or against each measure; and
d) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of each measure.

11.C. Ballot measure for business license tax on the sale, distribution, delivery, and consumption of cannabis. - New Item Received 7/22/2022
Recommended Action
Council could either direct staff to develop a cannabis study program that includes research to support the preparation of a comprehensive ordinance governing nonmedicinal commercial cannabis activity, a community outreach component, and a proposal to place a measure for a cannabis business license tax on the November 2024 general election ballot or adopt a resolution to place a cannabis business license tax measure on the November 2022 general election ballot.

11.D. Adoption of Resolutions for Proposed Ballot Measures on the November 8, 2022 Election Amending Article XVIII of the City Charter - New Item Received 7/22/2022
Recommended Actions

1. Per City Council direction on July 12, 2022, adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) placing a measure on the November 8, 2022, ballot that would amend Article XVIII of the City Charter reduce the Annual General Adjustment from 6% to 3%, effective January 1, 2023 to be placed on the November ballot; and

2. Per Council direction on July 12, 2022, adopt the attached resolution (Attachment B) placing a measure on the November 8, 2022, ballot that would amend Article XVIII of the City Charter to authorize the Rent Control Board to freeze or modify otherwise-allowed annual general adjustments to rent ceilings during a declared state of emergency by the President of the United States, the Governor, or upon a declaration of a local emergency by the City Council or Director of Emergency Services, while maintaining the landlord’s ability to petition for an upward rent adjustment; and

3. Authorize City Councilmembers to file written arguments for or against and direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis for each measure.

12. PUBLIC HEARINGS
No items

13. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
City of Santa Monica Generated: 7/27/2022 1:13 PM Page 9 No items

14. RESOLUTIONS
No items

15. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OTHER THAN REPORTS OF COMMISSION AND

OFFICERS
No items

16. COUNCILMEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS

16.A. Designation of voting delegate and alternate(s) for the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Business Meeting, to be held September 7 - 9, 2022, in Long Beach, California.

16.B. Request of Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers Davis and de la Torre that the City Council adopt and promote the attached statement against hate and direct the City Manager and City Clerk to incorporate its language into the City’s Code of Ethics and the City Council’s Code of Civility for public meetings. - New Item Received 7/22/2022

16.C. Request of Mayor Pro Tem McCowan that the City Council allocate up to $3,500 of their Discretionary Funds to the Santa Monica Sister Cities Association in support of travel to Brighton, England for the official signing of a Friendship City agreement with the City of Santa Monica. - New Item Received 7/22/2022

16.D. Request of Councilmembers de la Torre and Brock that the Council consider placing the attached proposed charter amendment, to encourage the payment of living wages, encourage the production of housing that is consistent with the proportion of affordable housing mandated by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and discourage irresponsible overdevelopment, on the November 2022 ballot for consideration by the voters. - New Item Received 7/22/2022

ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and reports are accessible on the City's webpage at www.smgov.net/council/agendas. They are also available at the City Clerk's Office and in alternate formats upon request. For a free email subscription to the City Council Agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or [email protected].

Members of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the meeting by meeting by mailing them to: City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 or to [email protected]. Written comments received from the public by 2 PM on the day of the City Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to the meeting and posted online.

City of Santa Monica Generated: 7/27/2022 1:13 PM Page 10 City Hall and the Council Chamber are wheelchair accessible. If you require any special disability related accommodations (i.e. sign language interpreting, access to an amplified sound system, etc.), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or TDD: (310) 917-6626 at least 3 days prior to the scheduled meeting.

Si desea comunicarse con alguien en español, llame a nuestra oficina al (310) 458-8211 y pida hablar con Esterlina Lugo.

Santa Monica Blue Bus Lines #2, #3, #5, #9 and the EXPO Line serve City Hall. Parking is available on Main Street, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).

City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item:
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Written Comment
Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments
Packet Pg. 11
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 10:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Human Services Commission
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 9:13 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Human Services Commission

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As you may recall I’ve been interested in serving the community.  I had applied to the now defunct Commission on the status of women.

I see that eight of the open seats of the human services commission have been appointed. I am throwing my hat in the ring to be the ninth seat. I’ve just submitted my application.

I welcome the opportunity to chat with any or all of you if you’d like to know more about me, than what appears in my application.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

David T. Pisarra, Esq.

Item 1
7/26/22
1 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
Recreation and Parks Commission
April 28, 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Reed Park Safety
To city council and manager
The June R&P regular meeting was devoted to Reed Park safety. We thanked Chief Bautista for attending and participating in our meeting.

Three Commission members reported on visiting the park invited and escorted by the SMOD task force on Reed Park.

Attached is an itemized list submitted by officer Steven Hollowell at the conclusion of the park visit. We would like to make the following suggestions to City Council and the City Manager:

1. We suggest that rather than removing the picnic tables and benches directly across from St.

Monica’s, a particularly troubled spot, that the area instead be fenced off to remove it temporarily from use with signage indicating the temporary nature of the closing and a sunset date after which it will be returned to use.

2. Address specific problem people within the park footprint with service and assistance as needed.

3. Replace trash cans with big belly cans. There are a number of cans available that have been removed from Montana Avenue that can be used for this purpose. When funding is available, replace the remaining trash cans with new big belly cans.,

4. Look into shutoff valves on old water fountains by the janitor supply closet

5. Look into possibility of activating the playhouse with a private/public partnership.

6. Look into placing ropes and mulching around the base of trees within the park as has been done with success Palisades park.

7. Update signage and placement (easily visible by park users)of same within the park. Signage must include municipal code sections, park closure hours, no sleeping in doorways, and other park rules. 8, Enforce park closure hours.

Sincerely,
Lori Brown
Chair, Recreation and Parks Commission
Item 1
7/26/22
2 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
Item 1
7/26/22
3 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Roger Chan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Rectify Repeated Public Nuisance and Noise Violations to Ordinance of Santa Monica Animal Shelter

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I'd like to get the following item on the council's agenda:

Summary: Loud noises/barking coming from Santa Monica Animal Shelter early morning through late at night and disturbing the peace
Details: After moving in nearby to an apartment building across the street from the Santa Monica Animal Shelter, I'm disturbed by the loud noises emanating from the Santa Monica Animal Shelter. There is incessant barking from the dogs that disturbs my sleep and work during the day, to the point where living here is not attractive at all and most likely untenable (I might have to move if it continues like this). It starts around 7 am, if not earlier, and goes until at least 10 pm. It must be beyond the acceptable Decibel level for allowable noise, since you can clearly hear the barking from the dogs with windows and doors closed to the point where it makes living in this area not enjoyable.

Can something be done to resolve this?  I understand that moving the animal shelter is probably an extreme course of action, so can a letter be sent to the animal shelter asking them to muzzle the dogs or, better yet, converting the housing of the animals/dogs to an interior space? This would alleviate the problem, I think, as there would be a sound barrier to prevent the loud barking from getting into the surrounding neighborhood.  Unfortunately, I don't know if a personal letter from private citizens would make any difference or command enough authority, which is why I am bringing the matter up to you, who carries that weight.  If this issue is not addressed, I fear this is going to make the neighborhood extremely unattractive to live in, not to mention the immediate effect of causing individuals such as me who live in the surrounding area to lose sleep and being disturbed throughout the day.

Let me know if you have any questions and I would be happy to provide more details as needed.  Also, if this does make it onto the agenda or if this item has been discussed before, can you let me know? Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely,
Roger Chan
Item 1
7/26/22
4 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
Item 1
7/26/22
5 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Christian Granzow <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 1:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Appeal of 20ENT-0275, Carlthorp School Expansion Attachments: Carlthorp.Letter.10-25-19.pdf

EXTERNAL
Please note that a letter from 10/25/19, the head of school Mr. Kusserow, added that Carlthorp does not only 1) plan to not include the acquisition of additional real estate.  Also, not sure how the expanded playground/field area will “diminish noise levels”, when it will have a reverse effect.

Item 1
7/26/22
6 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
1 Vernice Hankins
From: HowTheWest Was Saved <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 8:23 AM
To: Housing Elements@HCD
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Planning Commission Comments; [email protected]; Ruth Roofless; Leonora; [email protected]; LA City Planning; councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Subject: How much longer will Santa Monica & other localities be permitted to abuse their positions? Attachments: SocialHousingAuthority.TieiraRyder.4-25-22.pdf; PenmarGolfCourse+SMAirportproposal.TieiraRyder.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
"Santa Monica, ever the innovator, is breaking new ground in the field of blocking new homes by appropriating the language of social justice. This proposed initiative would require developers to pay up to 2.7 times the prevailing wage, which is of course completely infeasible."
https://twitter.com/ShaneDPhillips/status/1550947176410333184?s=20&t=24YgX0Adpt tkcmx_z0reQw
How much longer will Santa Monica & other localities be permitted to abuse their positions as residents continue to flee the state and those that stay continue to fall into homelessness? I'm asking HCD again to please authorize a county-led social housing authority that is people-led across all CA cities. We cannot wait for the establishment that has not done the right thing to finally just wake up one morning and decide they are going to do the right thing.

When has that ever happened and if it does, it's very rare! The people have waited long enough, we need localities to get their hands out of the housing market, they are causing serious disruptions in the lives of millions! What is a housing authority if they are not aligned with the best interests of the mass majority of residents who have a RIGHT TO LAND USE & HOUSING?
Item 1
7/26/22
7 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
2 Thank You for your attention to the matter, I'm patiently waiting for your response.

Best,
How The West Was Saved
https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/ To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Walkable, bike-friendly communities that are affordable are the right of every single human being. These communities are great for humanity, other species, and the Earth itself! Everything in the HUE-MANS life does NOT need to be a drive away.

Item 1
7/26/22
8 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
2/22/22, 7:31 PM When the Santa Monica airport closes… – How The West Was Saved https://htwws.org/santamonicaairport/ 1/11

HOW THE WEST WAS SAVED
"In the future when it's asked how the west was saved, the story will be that the people of the west saved themselves from ongoing systematic violence"
THE PROGRESSIVE SPACE 
When The Santa Monica Airport Closes…
 By Bear Writer  On 05/30/2021
Update: A Letter from HCD (Department of Housing & Community development) to Santa Monica City’s planning team regarding the upcoming housing element. How The West Was Saved (Tieira R.), Our current direction is not left
or right, but forward towards
progress.

How The West Was Saved is an
open space for discussions on
progressive solutions to the
Western world. Our team is
currently focused on solutions
to affordable housing in the
Greater Los Angeles area. We
are committed to progress, we
are committed to change for
the betterment of everyone in
society.

Follow Us
  
Petition:

Close the
incorrectly
zoned Santa
Monica
airport and
build housing
Item 1
7/26/22
9 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
2/22/22, 7:31 PM When the Santa Monica airport closes… – How The West Was Saved https://htwws.org/santamonicaairport/ 2/11
along with some other wonderful housing advocates were mentioned as consideration for the comments that HCD gave to Santa Monica regarding a compliant housing element. Thank You HCD for rejecting Santa Monica’s non-compliant housing element, we must hold cities accountable for housing production so that residents can finally have the housing that they are owed!
https://www.smgov.net/
When the incorrectly zoned Santa Monica airport closes, a closure that should be happening in this upcoming housing element cycle (2021-2022), a walkable community that includes
majority affordable housing should be developed. The
location is perfect for a community-owned, walkable/bike-friendly residential neighborhood that includes a variety of housing types for working-class residents on the westside, students, seniors, those living with disabilities, and many others in need of affordable housing.
(Author does not
own the rights to
all of the photos
attached, via
social media. All
rights reserved to
original owners)
Taras Grescoe
@grescoe
“I’ve been living my life wrong.”
—literally everyone in North America.
6:23 AM · Aug 30, 2021

1.4K Reply Share
Read 26 replies

CONTACT HTWWS
Your name
Your email
Subject
Your message (optional)
Submit
Target: To The
CA State
Attorney General
Rob Bonta & To
The California
Housing Authority
(HCD)

SIGN THIS

PETITION
Welcome back,
Tieira!
Not Tieira? Click here.

Comments

A D D Y O U R N A M E
Opt in to email updates
from Tieira Ryder
Action by: Tieira Ryder
Item 1
7/26/22
10 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
2/22/22, 7:31 PM When the Santa Monica airport closes… – How The West Was Saved https://htwws.org/santamonicaairport/ 3/11
To be clear, this community would include both communityowned rental and homeownership options. This pro-housing advocacy effort should be led by a housing advocate that understands the needs of the local community, someone that likely falls within the working class and has the best interest of the local community in mind. When it comes to renting, rent should never exceed 20-30% of a resident’s total income after
taxes. Please keep in mind, the average worker in LA makes about $39,000 a year, this rental housing would be catered to those workers but the community itself would be mixedincome meaning it would also include market-rate units (still cheaper usually than private market-rate housing).

Along with market-rate rentals & homeownership opportunities, business placements would be considered throughout the
community.

Housing proposal for the Santa Monica airport
(Please note that Penmar golf course is also being requested for this project.

The exact community plans would need to be confirmed & this is just a proposed housing plan for the vacant land space. The proposal was created by Tieira R.)
Affordable Homeownership;

1. Affordable, reasonably priced homeownership for working-class residents, priority for long-term residents living or working in the Santa Monica, Venice, & Mar Vista zip codes.

2. Consider a set number of market-rate “for-sale” homes.

3. A variety of home types should be considered for development but especially multi-family housing such as plexes, condos, townhomes, and apartments. Consider co-op ownership.

4. Priority consideration should also go to first-time
homeowners in LA County, my recommendation is residents that have lived/worked at least 10 years in LA County.

5. Priority consideration for historically displaced residents from supposed marginalized communities. Consider a 30-40% “right to return”, “right to housing” for ADOS families (African
descendants of Survivors), & for other residents impacted by systematic housing violence. (Google the history of displaced Black families in Santa Monica, Venice, and/or Manhattan Beach if you need more info.)

6. The millennial generation should also receive a percentage of priority consideration, they currently own a measly 18% of the homes in Los Angeles. “Equity is defined as “the state, quality or ideal of being just, impartial and fair.” The concept of equity is synonymous with fairness and
justice.”

DONATE TO HTWWS
Cashapp Me
Item 1
7/26/22
11 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
2/22/22, 7:31 PM When the Santa Monica airport closes… – How The West Was Saved https://htwws.org/santamonicaairport/ 4/11

7. At no time would a small or large equity firm be granted permission to purchase a home within the community nor would an option be granted to purchase the community as a whole.

8. My recommendation on income qualifications for residents that are first-time buyers is; working-class residents making between $30,000-$130,000.

9. If potential owners require financing, ownership could be subject to credit union or bank approval. Consider public, city-owned bank.

10. The actual cost of homes should match that of the actual average wage of what most working-class residents make. There would likely be re-sell requirements as affordability would be protected by a trust.

Affordable Rental Housing;

1. Community-owned rental housing in mixed-income
developments.

2. The recommended height for apartment buildings is 6-7 stories.

3. Set an “affordable rental rate” based on what the average person from the working class makes. At this moment, most workers in LA make about $39,000 a year. Affordability is usually priced for residents in the $17,000-$70,000 range.

4. Community-owned market-rate rentals to be included, most likely still cheaper than the private market-rate rental housing.

5. No income restrictions once residents are housed.
https://www.nhlp.org/resources/lihtc-admissions-rentsgrievance-procedures/

6. Reserve a portion of the housing for limited to no-income residents. Consider the following; subsidize with HUD and/or new digital voucher program; subsidize low to no income residents with market-rate apartment & business rentals; consider HCID/HACLA westside chapter. Social services for housing, food, and health care should be ONE efficient program.

7. Affordable bachelors, studios, 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms.

8. As with affordable homeownership, the rental units & placements would be for various types of community members but especially keeping in mind our core working class which includes
the essential workforce, students, seniors, veterans, those living with disabilities, etc. etc.

9. Student apartments would be bachelor-sized apartments with smaller fridges and MUST have a kitchen area sink and a small area to put a hot plate (or something similar) so they can cook if needed. (Similar to this https://urbanize.city/la/post/micro-unitapartment-building) Item 1
7/26/22
12 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
2/22/22, 7:31 PM When the Santa Monica airport closes… – How The West Was Saved https://htwws.org/santamonicaairport/ 5/11
More info on the proposed community as a whole;

1. priority consideration for business placements within the community.

2. Open park space, recreation center within the walkable community. Cars can exist on the outside of the community, not within.

3. Consider the possible need to build new schools.

4. Consider a quality westside public transit system especially for college students between SMC and/or UCLA. (cut down on car traffic congestion because students wouldn’t need to drive)

5. College student housing should have its own small park area that has a WIFI and outdoor/indoor workspace for them.

6. Consider large home space for displaced minors within the community aka a “group home” to provide stability.

7. Request consideration for golf course closure(s) as well as other vacant land plots and buildings that have
potential use for affordable housing that is communityowned and suits apartments, condos, townhomes, small and/or tiny homes for locals. Request more interim housing and healthcare sites on the westside for residents with long-term behavioral health needs.

The overall progressive housing goal is to adopt a similar social housing policy for each city in California (all of the U.S) with prohousing community advocates from said cities leading the efforts.

The private market can obviously always exist but it can’t compete against itself, forcing residents to beg for housing that is priced much higher than most can afford. That doesn’t sound like freedom to me!
California’s Housing Crisis
The current CA housing crisis is literally wiping out and pushing the blue-collar working class, students, senior citizens, and many other residents into poverty! In the last 10 years, rent has gone up well over 65% in the city of Los Angeles, in that same amount of time the number of unhoused residents increased by at least 50%! There are currently 60,000+
unhoused residents in LA County and the median income can no longer afford a rent-controlled studio in cities like Santa Monica!
Item 1
7/26/22
13 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
2/22/22, 7:31 PM When the Santa Monica airport closes… – How The West Was Saved https://htwws.org/santamonicaairport/ 6/11
It’s time to return ownership to the residents of Los
Angeles, our right to clean, safe, and affordable housing is being denied!
Side Notes:

Walkable communities are
essential
https://planning.lacity.org/plans-policies/housing-element (LA City Housing Element)
What is a community land trust?
“Starting at about $600 per month for a studio, rents in the Los Angeles Eco-Village are less than half the price of some comparable apartments nearby, and prices aren’t raised unless community members agree to it. That’s possible because the land beneath the co-op is owned by the Beverly/Vermont Community Land Trust, which has pledged to make the land permanently affordable regardless of rising housing prices.”
Renters need to earn $95,000 to afford rent-controlled
studio in Santa Monica, new report says
A household earning the Los Angeles area’s median income cannot afford a rentcontrolled studio in Santa Monica, according to a new report from the city’s Rent Control Board. By U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development affordability standards, a family would need an income of at least $95,429 to afford a studio, which is about … Continue reading
Santa Monica Daily Press 1
Item 1
7/26/22
14 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
2/22/22, 7:31 PM When the Santa Monica airport closes… – How The West Was Saved https://htwws.org/santamonicaairport/ 7/11
https://laist.com/2021/02/02/community-land-trusts-los-angelesaffordable.php An email from the Santa Monica planning team regarding
use of the airport in this upcoming housing element
“Hi , Thanks for sharing your proposal and thoughts for the airport. Please note that since the airport is slated to close at the end of 2028 and conversion to any other use would take time, the airport is not realistically being considered in the planning for the 6 cycle Housing Element Update
(October 2021 – July 2029). It will most certainly be a consideration in the following housing element cycle
(beyond 2029). However, to get to that point, there will need to be a public process around the future of the airport given the significant community interest and varying views on its future use so I hope you will continue on to be engaged in that separate effort.”
Quotes from an LA Times article regarding the Santa
Monica airport
“The opening of a the 227-acre site on the Westside — in close proximity to jobs, good schools and transit — is a once-in-ageneration opportunity. Housing has to be a part of the equation. “Since the 1980s, Santa Monica has approved the construction of millions of square feet of office space, transforming it into a hub for both the tech and entertainment industries, with a daytime population that swells by more than 150,000 people. But this explosive job growth has not been accompanied by a proportional increase in housing units.” “Santa Monica’s estimated population of 92,478 residents in 2019 was only a blip above what it was in 1970, when 88,289 people called the city home. This growing imbalance between jobs and housing has created a massive influx of daily commuters into Santa Monica (even well-compensated tech employees) who either can’t find or can’t afford housing near these job centers. Meanwhile, population in neighboring jurisdictions has swelled, displacing lower-income residents. The result is more and more commuters crowding the freeways from increasingly distant parts of Southern California.”
The plan to turn Santa Monica Airport into a park is irresponsible.

The Westside needs housing
th
Item 1
7/26/22
15 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
REPEAL ARTICLE 34 in the CA state constitution; USE public land for PUBLIC GOOD, end systematic housing violence & displacement. Article 34 of the CA constitution reads; “No low rent housing project shall hereafter be developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state public body until, a majority of the qualified electors of the city, town or county, as the case may be..”
Localities that have been abusing their positions and segregating cities by race & class should not decide what happens to public land. Workers that commute into cities also have the right to decide what happens to public land, retirees, college students, and many others also have that right!
“Heidi Marston resigns from LASHA, citing difficulties in fulfilling LAHSA's mission without"fundamental shifts". In her resignation letter, Marston elaborates:
"Power and funding alone control homelessness. But in our current system, organizations like the one I lead, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), are not given control over regulatory or policy decisions, service providers remain underfunded, and dedicated front-line employees of non-profit organizations and government entities are hamstrung by rules, red tape, and bureaucracy. Marston also points to low wages, high rents, restrictive zoning laws, and other "shadow monsters'' we must tackle in order to end homelessness." https://medium.com/@hmarston2/the-homelessness-crisis-a-monster-of-our-own-maki ng-be5975399ce1
1 Item 1
7/26/22
16 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) Structural Governance of the Social Housing Authority
The State Housing Authority - HCD will oversee
The Social Housing Authority; Community-led development of PS, affordable, & market-rate housing: Social Housing Agencies in each county in CA (ONE SOCIAL HOUSING AGENCY with selected progressive civil peers (community advocates) assigned to offices in each part of the county (likely NSEW & Mid-City, TBD);a group of progressive housing civil peers that implements & develops new community-owned affordable, market-rate, and PS rental housing on publicly owned land throughout LA County. Communities are well put together, mostly in walkable, pedestrian/bike-friendly built communities. The agency as a collective whole will capture vacancy numbers (parking lots, buildings (privately & publicly owned), to determine ownership/best use for vacant spaces.

The Social Housing Authority will override city councils in localities to partner directly with County BOS, and HCD to collect funding meant for homeless/housing 2 Item 1
7/26/22
17 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) spending, money goes into ONE TRUST account that must provide RECEIPTS of where/how much money is spent on specific projects.

Agency works with HUD to implement new guidelines for affordable homeownership for the blue-collar working class. Agency maintains ONE website/database that has a list of AVAILABLE community-owned affordable, market-rate, and PS rental housing. List of AVAILABLE affordable & market-rate homeownership opportunities.

Affordable housing waitlist for rental housing should be no longer than 6 months, 6 months is actually too long but should not exceed that. The social housing agency is focused on public safety, public safety means safety from heavy traffic violence and climate arson. This means the social housing team works to build communities that are walkable, bike, and pedestrian-friendly. Communities that have access to green space.

Communities that aren’t being heavily polluted by LAPD helicopter pilots (noise & fuel pollution linked to dementia, linked to cancer). Cars belong on the outside of multi-family communities, not within. Cars are occupying too much land space! Humans need land to live on, we shouldn’t NEED to drive everywhere. Create when possible 15-20 minute cities/small communities.
3 Item 1
7/26/22
18 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) Social Agency is primarily focused on the development of community-owned housing. However, the agency will be divided into 3 primary teams; PSH, affordable & market-rate rentals, affordable & market-rate homeownership; Permanent Supportive Housing- PSH for residents in need of wraparound services. Services could be needed short or long-term depending on the person.

This team is focused on securing housing for residents with low-to-no income, chronically homeless, FOSTER youth (up to age 24), disabilities etc. This team doesn’t provide the services it connects other agencies & non-profits to PS housing.

This team maintains a database of PSH units that are available and works to revamp/remodel the broken shelter housing system to turn them into PSH.

Again, ONE social service housing website for residents with varying needs.

Foster Youth: safe and clean group homes that provide guidance & structure to youth/young adults up to the age of 24.

REVAMP the broken Foster System; guidance comes from social workers that are based out of the revamped DPSS, non-profits, grassroots teams, etc.).

PSH shouldn’t feel carceral (jail-prison like).
4 Item 1
7/26/22
19 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) Supportive services are wraparound services in QUALITY family planning, STI/STD prevention/protection, mental, behavioral, & rehabilitation healthcare, etc, etc.

Introduce UBI, money that should come from another trust account will not come from the housing trust fund. UBI for foster youth, and adult residents not working or below the poverty line. UBI up to $1000 a month for completed work/ treatment assignments.

For displaced youth; completed schooling/work/etc. Standard UBI (no work /treatment assignments required) $300-$500.

Repeating; services are provided by A REVAMPED DPSS, by grassroots and non-profit teams, etc. Agency will provide a civil peer court system; will also be for any potential cases of alleged abuse happening from workers but all workers must have ongoing training, schooling, and teachings in proper behavior when interacting with residents in PSH communities, especially foster youth! Service teams should meet every few months to go over what is and what is not working, the social housing agency does not provide the service, they are simply making available the housing needed for the residents in need of PSH, possibly in need of long term care, healing, community.

The PSH Social Housing Team works with the DPSS to secure safe parking/dwelling zones within the county until PSH becomes available. All non-profit groups/service teams need to be an extension of this department (LASHA, DPSS, Grassroot teams, etc., etc.) Service teams should be able to contact PSH social agency team to find PSH, Safe parking/dwelling, and/or to receive money for temporary hotel/room stays (FEMA MONEY should be used as the ONE trust account is mostly for development/maintenance/admin of community-owned housing. ONE TRUST per county social agency/authority).
5 Item 1
7/26/22
20 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) Community-Owned affordable & market-rate Housing; residents are self-sufficient, can pass a criminal background check likely just need assistance securing an affordable or market-rate unit. Will work with residents with a prior eviction. Community-owned affordable & market-rate rental housing that is always affordable. Rent shouldn’t take more than 20-30% of a resident's total income after taxes. Establish an affordable rental market-rate price for the blue-collar working class. The affordable price should not be averaged with working-class/high income earners included in the calculation. Most workers, most jobs in LA County pay about $40,000. What is the average wage for the blue-collar worker??? Community-owned, market-rate units will likely be much cheaper than privately owned market-rate.

All local city affordable housing authorities would be moved into the social agency/demolished. There are too many moving parts of the housing programs/processes. We need ONE coordinated system with FUNCTIONING non-profits, social service teams an extension of the one agency. Social workers, field workers, and rehousing specialists should be able to utilize the agency/website to secure at a minimum safe parking/safe dwelling. Should be able to give food vouchers/stamps, etc. to those that need them.

Again, the housing team is likely divided by local cities in the county, likely by NSEW & mid-city, TBD. Each of those divided teams will be divided into the 3 groups of; PSH, affordable & market-rate rentals, affordable & market-rate homeownership) Public Safety- A civil peer board of housing (court) will be established to hear cases about any potential threats to public safety happening in Socially owned housing. The court will also hear about allegations of any abuse happening within the system and 6 Item 1
7/26/22
21 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) correct the action. PSA on appropriate behavior will be provided to all residents/staff that are part of the social housing community.

The goal of the Social Housing agency is to prevent displacement but they will support “JUST-CAUSE” eviction for tenants posing a risk/threat to other tenants. No gang activity or violence WILL be tolerated, the community has a right to safety, if that safety is ever threatened, residents in the community have the right to evict! Some PSH will be for residents in transition from jail/prison back into community living. Prevent ROOT CAUSE of problems that we are seeing in our community. Also, consider communities for disabled residents/ residents with special needs that may need long-term wraparound services. Consider partnership with community colleges for affordable housing for students/young adults up to age 24-25. Consider committed behavioral, mental, and rehabilitation health programs for residents with outstanding issues in above mentioned. Any committed programs should still be a place of healing, not further violence and trauma. Dismantle and rebuild existing programs in that area.

Fix the problems at the ROOT, save the next generation and again, ongoing training, and schooling, for workers in this field. HIGHER pay for workers in these fields! 7 Item 1
7/26/22
22 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) The private housing market can always exist if it likes but residents shouldn't be forced to rely on it. There are residents whose families have been dealing with generational housing violence as it relates to race & class, they cannot rely on a privately owned market that has no accountability! Rent has gone up by over 65% within the last 10 years in LA County with no rebuttal for the blue-collar working class, retirees, residents of generational housing violence and displacement, college students, foster youth, and many many others. 8 Item 1
7/26/22
23 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) 9 Item 1
7/26/22
24 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) This social agency will have nothing to do with private housing developments but it can purchase private housing and it can assist with securing housing for residents in privately owned housing. The Social Agency will maintain a website of AVAILABLE community-owned affordable, market-rate, and PS rental housing units. Privately owned units can also be listed. <<< WATCH CYBER FRAUD/SCAMS which is rampant on apartment rental websites.

The social agency is being created to develop and implement new housing developments on vacant publicly owned land and remodels for publicly owned vacant buildings. The agency cannot deny community-owned housing developments in any neighborhood in LA County, they are a county-wide team that implements new developments of community-owned PS, affordable, and market-rate housing in ALL CITIES in the county, this includes SANTA MONICA, BEVERLY HILLS,

WEST HOLLYWOOD, MARINA DEL REY, PASADENA, DOWNEY, LONG
BEACH, etc., etc., etc., ALL CITIES IN LA COUNTY! The intentional segregation as it relates to race & class MUST end, THE NIMBY violence MUST END!
For community-owned affordable & market-rate housing, long-term residents of LA County should get priority with housing placements, focusing on getting workers closer to their jobs. It is imperative for the health of humans, the health of the Earth, and other species that we reduce drive times, and reduce pollution. Preventing displacement is IMPERATIVE. The team can prevent displacement by subsidizing rent for tenants in privately owned units and/or helping move them to community-owned affordable housing.
10 Item 1
7/26/22
25 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) Affordable homeownership- full proposal coming soon, introduce co-ops, CLT’s, and resell requirements. The primary focus is blue-collar workers (affordable with resell requirements) and market-rate housing. Use money from market-rate sales to place into the ONE trust account. Insert grassroots team to help with restorative justice aspects of homeownership for residents impacted by systematic racial violence.

How do you think this story is going to end?????????
Short-term rentals- introduce tourism short-term stays, money goes into the ONE trust account.

Trust Account- One trust account that will be audited by city/state controllers. Money comes from HUD, Feds, State, Donations, & HHH. The annual state surplus budget must donate a portion into trust every year. The tourism industry should be donating a portion of total earnings into the trust. The cannabis industry should be donating a portion of money into the trust, should be redirecting money to communities impacted by the “pretend war on drugs” created by the U.S Gov’t. A small portion is for admin/resident manager fees (try to avoid outsourcing resident management to other companies, which could run up costs). The largest portion of the trust is for housing development/property maintenance.) How much are CA taxpayers giving in federal dollars to other states using the money for social services (TBD). 11 Item 1
7/26/22
26 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) Community-owned housing cannot be sold to corporations. If TOPA is introduced, keep under CLT (land lease) to allow tenants to purchase their units but prevent corporations from being able to purchase***??? (verify). Also, any money given to nonprofits to build affordable housing should mean that that housing cannot be sold to a corporation. How and why are some non-profits that received Gov’t/Taxpayer money able to sell affordable buildings after a set number of years to private corporations? Housing would go back to the social agency OR TOPA if the non-profit wanted to be released from oversight/responsibility. The Social Agency can buy privately owned property and resell it to private owners/corporations but NOT publicly owned land/housing, not rent nor ownership. Again, community-owned developments are going to be built with the community in mind, with green space, stores, hospitals, etc., sometimes worked/developed within the communities.

Social Housing Plans ready for implementation;
https://htwws.org/santamonicaairport/
(Author notes, not part of the proposal)
-Examine the years that ADOS (American descendants of Survivors paid federal taxes but were not able to utilize public service. Examine displacement and communities that were intentionally burned t the ground by supremacists. Request reimbursement/hold percent of federal/state taxes to heal communities.
-Tenancy in common is a form of co-ownership of property in which each party owns an undivided interest that passes to his or her heirs at death. The interest is undivided 12 Item 1
7/26/22
27 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) because each tenant has rights in the whole property. Although ownership is in common, tenants may have equal or unequal shares.
-Joint tenancy is the joint ownership of property by two or more co-owners in which each co-owner owns an undivided portion of the property. On the death of one of the joint tenants, their interest is automatically passed to surviving tenants. -Real property- immovable property, a building, land, plants etc, (though buildings can actually be moved depending on).
-Just cause eviction in CLT - Community members causing violence when corrective action cannot be taken, not working. Racial violence & other forms of discrimination.

Peer court will recommend rehabilitation programs when permitted to do so, severe cases could result in immediate evictions.
-Land on Earth belongs to all of humanity.
-Land has not been fairly distributed to residents impacted by systematic housing violence as it relates to race & class.
-The aim of the Surplus Land Act (the "Act"); is to increase the availability of real property in California for affordable housing development by requiring the prioritization of affordable housing when selling or leasing public lands no longer necessary for agency use.
-"Feb. 5, 1866: Thaddeus Stevens Proposes Land Distribution Amendment" https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/thaddeus-stevens-freedmens-bill/ 13 Item 1
7/26/22
28 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) -Foster City- examine the broken foster system, keeping families together whenever possible, family planning services, safe housing & family for youth that are not able to stay with their biological families.

To do;
-Write the state bar and include them on your housing emails. REQUIRE that the state bar authorize civil peers to oversee legal issues related to housing (LLP’s). -BLM the org must redirect funding into one trust that is overseen by a group of Black civil peers. Push money back into Black communities as direct UBI payment, as housing payments, treatment payments, crime & gang prevention, etc., etc. -Email OMBW/Watch for grants (GS)
-Civilian Eminent Domain of Public Land; communities protected from Climate arson; Free market exists for those that want to be part of it. -Establish Public Bank
-A PORTION of public land MUST remain PUBLICLY owned for use by the community.
-Agency divided into NSEW & Mid-City?!?! Civil Peer teams in NSEW & Mid-City ?? -If the BOS goes ROUGE, the social agency will partner with the state housing authority directly and override county BOS should they become non-compliant. 14 Item 1
7/26/22
29 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
The Social Housing Authority
(created by Tieira Ryder; 4/25/22 https://htwws.org/social-housing-ca/) -representcal.org, why a constitutional convention is necessary, and how the CA constitution allows localities to abuse their position, allows illegal segregation as it relates to race & class.
-Examine pre-built tiny home/ADU placements in well put together communities that are affordable & supportive. Sheds are not tiny homes. Some residents already own tiny homes or they want to, can support themselves but need land. Communities likely could be supported in the valley.
15 Item 1
7/26/22
30 of 30 Item 1
7/26/22

1.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Written Comments (5288 : Written Comment)
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 3.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Conference with Labor Negotiator: Government Code Section 54957.6 -- Agency Designated Representatives: City Manager David White and Chief People Officer Lori Gentles; Bargaining Units: ATA-Administrative Team Associates; IBT-California Teamsters Local 911; FEMA-Santa Monica Fire Executive Management Association; FIRE-Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109 IAFF; MEA-Municipal Employees Association; AFSCME Local 4819, Management Team Association; PALSSU-Public Attorneys’ Legal Support Staff Union; PAU- Public Attorneys Union; POA-Santa Monica Police Officer Association; SMART TD-The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Division, Local 1785; STA- Supervisory Team Associates; Coalition of Santa Monica City Employees.

Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council

3.B
Packet Pg. 42
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Special Agenda Items Subject: City Manager Report
Prepared By: Christopher Smith, Assistant to the City Manager Approved Forwarded to Council

4.A
Packet Pg. 43
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Award Bid and Enter into Agreement with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc., to Prepare a Recycled Water Master Plan
Recommended Action
Staff Recommends that the City Council:

1. Award RFP# 318 to Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc., to provide professional services for the development of a Recycled Water Master Plan;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $363,000 to provide professional services for the development of a Recycled Water Master Plan; and

3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.

Summary
The City’s Public Works Department – Water Resources Division operates and maintains the City’s non-potable water or recycled water distribution system. The existing recycled water distribution is limited in service area and capacity as historical production of non-potable water in the City has been limited to dry weather urban runoff captured by the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) and accounts for less than 1% of the City’s total water supply. With the completion of the City’s Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) in Fall of 2022, recycled water production in the City will increase and account for approximately 10%, or up to 1,680 acre-feet per year, of the City’s water supply. A comprehensive Recycled Water Master Plan is needed to support the SWIP and establish a road map for future recycled water infrastructure development to serve existing and new recycled water users and City

5.A
Packet Pg. 44
2 of 6
services. Staff recommends that RFP #318 be awarded to Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc., and that an agreement be negotiated and executed to prepare the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan.

Discussion
In 2018, City Council approved the updated Sustainable Water Master Plan aimed to reduce the City’s reliance on imported water supplies and ensure long-term water resiliency through water conservation, developing alternative water supplies (e.g., recycled water), and increasing local groundwater production. The 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan and the various water supply projects being currently implemented to increase the sustainability and drought resiliency of the City’s water supply by 2023 are essential components of the City’s overarching sustainable city goals outlined in the 2019 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan to achieve carbon neutrality.

A critical component of the 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan is the development of alternative water supplies that are drought resilient and sustainable through the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP). The SWIP will leverage stormwater, dry weather urban runoff, and municipal wastewater to produce advanced treated recycled water that will be suitable for irrigation, dual plumbing applications (e.g., toilet flushing), and for potable reuse to recharge local groundwater aquifers. The Recycled Water Master Plan will be the first of its kind for the City to leverage SWIP’s drought resilient water supply to increase recycled water use in the City through expanding the City’s recycled water distribution infrastructure and mitigate against on-going drought conditions across the region and the State of California. The Recycled Water Master Plan aims to identify new recycled water users in the City to increase recycled water use, establish a robust hydraulic model to facilitate future system expansion, and develop a capital improvement program to expand the City’s recycled water infrastructure.

On March 22, 2022, City Council approved Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

7.12.170 requiring the implementation of recycled water use for applicable new development; however, the City’s existing non-potable water distribution system is

5.A
Packet Pg. 45
3 of 6
limited in extent and capacity. The Recycled Water Master Plan will establish a pathway and timeline to expand the City’s recycled water user area to compliment SMMC Section 7.12.170 and increase recycled water use across the City to reduce potable water demand, which is critical in conditions such as the on-going drought across the State of California.

The City currently operates a limited non-potable water distribution system supplying City facilities and some private users with non-potable water from SMURRF confined to only landscape irrigation and toilet flushing at limited facilities. The City’s non-potable water customer base is constrained to primarily City-owned facilities and two private customers as the SMURRF is a stormwater best management practice facility not permitted for water recycling per California regulations. With the implementation of SWIP, not only will recycled water production in the City significantly increase but the City will also be able to obtain permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for recycled water distribution and potable reuse in recharging local groundwater aquifers. This represents a significant opportunity for the City to maximize use of recycled water throughout the City, expand its recycled water customer base, and help reduce the City’s reliance on imported water supplies.

The Recycled Water Master Plan will also align the City’s current and planned future recycled water infrastructure with other long-range planning documents and efforts including the 6th Cycle Housing Element and the future of the Santa Monica Airport. This will allow future developments to incorporate the use of recycled water to the extent possible under the State of California’s recycled water regulations.

The core objective of the Recycled Water Master Plan is to assist the City in establishing a road map for future recycled water distribution system infrastructure development to increase the City’s recycled water distribution network, expand the City’s recycled water customer base, and recharge local groundwater aquifers all aimed to reduce the City’s reliance on imported water supplies. In addition, the Recycled Water Master Plan will outline a long-range capital improvement plan for future infrastructure projects that, once implemented, will allow the City to fully utilize the

5.A
Packet Pg. 46
4 of 6
advanced treated recycled water produced by SWIP. The best qualified firm also included additional services, that are optional, to enhance the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan. These optional services are not guaranteed to the consultant and funds would only be expended for each optional service as authorized by City staff. These additional enhancements, which total to approximately $113,000, includes:
• Alternative analysis (up to 3 alternatives), which include additional hydraulic model scenarios, is budgeted as an optional service. The alternatives analysis could consider partnerships through the Santa Monica Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency to increase groundwater recharge with advanced treated recycled water in the City’s groundwater basins or it could consider future planning efforts for the City’s Airport property.
• A broader market survey of potential recycled water customers throughout the City. The broader market survey would consider future recycled water users as state regulations on approved customer/end use of advanced treated recycled water is still evolving. Planning for future scenarios would maximize recycled water use in the City and provide a robust master planning effort beyond current regulated recycled water uses.
• Framework for the City’s recycled water revenue program. This optional service would develop the framework and pricing policy for the City’s recycled water to align with future recycled water expansion scenarios.

Vendor/Consultant Selection
Bidder Recommendation
Best Qualified Person/Firm Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Evaluation Criteria Training/credentials/experience, competence/skill, capacity/ability to perform services promptly, sufficiency of financial/other resources, character/reputation, ability to provide future services as needed and price.

Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.190
RFPs Received
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

RFP Data
Posted On Posted On
Advertised In
(City Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
03/22/2022 City's Online
Bidding Site Santa Monica Daily Press 28 05/13/2022

5.A
Packet Pg. 47
5 of 6
Justification to Award
The proposals were reviewed by a selection panel consisting of staff from the Public Works Department – Water Resources Division. The proposal evaluations were based on project understanding/workplan, previous experience, ability to deliver, quality of product, cost, and compliance with City requirements. Based on the evaluation criteria and criteria in SMMC 2.24.190, Staff recommends Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc., as the best qualified firm to prepare the Recycled Water Master Plan based on their extensive and prior experience in developing similar recycled water master plans for other California municipalities and agencies including San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Eastern Municipal Water District, City of Santa Cruz, and Monterey One Water.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
11/27/2018
(Attachment A)
Sustainable Water Master Plan Update and Pathway to Water SelfSufficiency 9/10/19
(Attachment B)
City Council authorized the construction phase of the SWIP by awarding the Guaranteed Maximum Price contract amendment for construction services.
3/22/22
(Attachment C)
City Council approved modification of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 7.12.170 to incorporate water recycling requirements.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Wastewater Fund to award an agreement with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc., for the development of the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan. The cost of the base scope of services for the Recycled Water Master Plan is included in the adopted FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program Budget. Award of the agreement with optional services would require an additional $113,000 appropriation from the Wastewater Fund’s operating budget. The Wastewater Enterprise fund has sufficient surplus in its current operating budget to cover the additional cost.

FY 2022-23 CIP Budget Changes
Additional Appropriation of Funds Requested

5.A
Packet Pg. 48
6 of 6
Account Number(s) Amount
C5108610.689000 $113,000
Agreement Request
FY 2022-23
Budget
Request Amount
CIP Account # Total Contract
Amount
$363,000 C5108610.689000 $363,000
Prepared By: Chris Aguillon, Water Resources Protection Specialist Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (Web Link)
B. Approval of SWIP Design/Build Contract Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment (Web Link)
C. ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance
D. Oaks Initiative Disclsoure (Kennedy Jenks)

5.A
Packet Pg. 49
City Council Meeting March 22, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER 2697 (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA MODIFYING SECTION 7.12.170 OF THE SANTA MONICA

MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD WATER RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the extreme dryness that has ravaged California now ranks as the driest 22-year period in at least 1,200 years; and
WHEREAS, California Water Code Section 461 requires the maximum reuse of recycled water in the satisfaction of requirements for beneficial uses of water; California Water Code Section 13550 states that it is a waste or unreasonable use of water if recycled water is available, is of adequate quality, of a reasonable cost to the user, will not be detrimental to public health, and will not adversely affect downstream water rights, or water quality, or be injurious to plant life, fish, or wildlife; and California Water Code Section 13551 provides that no one shall use water suitable for potable domestic use for non-potable uses, if suitable recycled water use is available; and WHEREAS, recycled water is a source of water for approved non-potable uses as specified in the California Code of Regulations Title 22 Recycled Water Criteria; and 1 of 11
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) 2 of 11
WHEREAS, the City’s Water Division has constructed the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), which is able to deliver treated wastewater at a tertiary level for non-potable uses and as allowed by Title 22 Recycled Water Criteria; and WHEREAS, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (RWQCB) has required, as a condition to permitting the SWIP (Permit Order Number R4-2021-0044), that the City adopt an ordinance providing for the use of recycled water; and
WHEREAS, the sale of recycled water to water customers that can use the water for approved purposes will benefit water ratepayers overall by reducing the need to purchase imported potable water; and
WHEREAS, recycled water is also a component of the City's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the long-range plan to develop a sustainable water supply portfolio; and
WHEREAS, the City has developed a recycled water system to meet the increasing urban demand and offset potable uses; and
WHEREAS, in order to expand its recycled water service, the City desires to require certain new developments to install facilities necessary for the delivery of recycled water, as a development standard.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 7.12.170 is hereby amended to read as follows:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) 3 of 11

7.12.170 Recycled Water Requirements
(a) Recycled Water Use. Recycled water shall be used within the City’s recycled water service area in-lieu of potable water for all approved uses consistent with all applicable federal, state, and local laws effective January 1, 2023. (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of administering this Section:
(1) Recycled water. Refers to domestic wastewater that has been cleaned so that it can be used more than once or reused.
(A) Non-potable reuse. Refers to the use of recycled water for nonpotable uses. The City treats wastewater, stormwater, and urban runoff to a quality suitable for non-potable uses such as landscape irrigation, water features, or toilet flushing as regulated by Title 22 of California’s Code of Regulations. Non-potable recycled water is not intended for human consumption.
(B) Indirect potable reuse. Refers to the use of advanced treated recycled water for a Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project where the advanced treated recycled water is used to replenish a groundwater basin.

The City treats wastewater, stormwater, and urban runoff to a quality suitable for groundwater replenishment regulated by Title 22 of California’s Code of Regulations.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) 4 of 11
(2) Recycled water service area. The areas identified in the recycled water service area map. The recycled water service area map will be posted on the City’s Water Resources Division website and included in the Guidelines. (3) Regulating agencies for recycled water. Rules and Regulations for the end use of recycled water are enforced by the following agencies. (A) LARWQCB. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is the State of California agency that regulates discharges of recycled water to surface waters on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency through the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or Waste Discharge Requirement/Water Reclamation Requirement permits, which incorporate applicable recycled water requirements for the production, distribution and use of recycled water.
(B) DDW. The State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water is the State of California agency that regulates drinking water and coordinates with the Regional Boards to ensure a proposed recycled water project complies with all federal and state regulations for the protection of public health.
(C) LACDPH. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is the agency that certifies backflow prevention assembly testers, also having jurisdiction to regulate onsite cross-connection control in Los Angeles County.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) 5 of 11
(4) Non-potable recycled water applications. The City’s recycled water is suitable for the following non-potable applications:
(A) Surface irrigation application. Allowable uses of recycled water for surface irrigation applications including any of the following: food crops, including all edible root crops, where the recycled water comes into contact with the edible portion of the crop; parks and playgrounds; school yards; residential and freeway landscaping; golf courses; cemeteries; decorative fountains; ornamental nursery stock where the public is not restricted; and other allowable applications specified by Title 22 of California’s Code of Regulations provided approval is obtained from DDW and LACDPH.
(B) Dual-plumbing application. A system utilizing separate piping systems for recycled water and potable water within a facility and where the recycled water serves plumbing fixtures (excluding fire suppression systems) used for flushing toilets and urinals, industrial process or boiler feeds, commercial laundries or carwashes, industrial or commercial cooling towers, evaporative condensers within a building; and/or other allowable applications specified by Title 22 of California’s Code of Regulations provided approval is obtained from DDW and LACDPH. (5) Guidelines. Santa Monica Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) 6 of 11
(6) Applicant. Means an Owner or authorized representative of a potential reuse site, who applies for recycled water service from the City, meeting user requirements set forth by LACDPH and DDW.
(7) Director. The Director of the City’s Public Works Department or his or her designee.
(8) New development. Any new structure with any plumbing fixture(s), cooling tower(s), and/or new, enlarged, or relocated irrigation system, pond, or water feature.
(9) Projected potable water demand. The total amount of projected potable water demand for a proposed new development.
(10) Projected non-potable water demand. The total amount of projected nonpotable water demand for a proposed new development. (c) Applicability for mandatory recycled water use. All new development within the recycled water service area and with a total floor area of 7,500 square feet or more shall be required to utilize 100 percent recycled water for surface irrigation and/or dualplumbing applications. (d) Exemptions for recycled water use.
(1) Any exemptions recognized by the LACDPH.
(2) Fire protection systems in any development may not utilize recycled water and must be supplied by a separate potable water system unless allowed by LACDPH.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) 7 of 11
(3) Where recycled water quality has been deemed non-suitable for a particular fixture, equipment or application as reasonably determined by the Director; in such case, the particular fixture, equipment or application may be exempt from the use of recycled water and must be supplied by a separate potable water system.
(4) New development with a planning entitlement application determined complete before January 1, 2023.
(e) Recycled water implementation procedures. Applicable candidates for recycled water use must utilize the following standards for the implementation of recycled water services.
(1) Departmental standards, forms, and other regulations. The City’s Department of Public Works, Water Resources Division shall develop the Guidelines, including administrative standards, policies, procedures, and technical details, to carry out the purposes of this Section. The Guidelines shall be compiled in a separate document referred to as the Santa Monica Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures on file in the office of the Water Resources Division and posted on the City’s Water Resources Division website.

The City shall regularly maintain and update the Guidelines. (2) Recycled water service design standards. Recycled water systems for surface irrigation and dual-plumbing applications shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Guidelines and Chapter 8.32 (Plumbing Code), as amended from time to time.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) 8 of 11
(3) Operation, maintenance, and inspection standards. Recycled water systems for surface irrigation and dual-plumbing applications shall be operated, maintained, and inspected in accordance with Chapter 7.12 (Utility Division); any approvals of the recycled water systems issued by the City, LACDPH, and DDW; and the Guidelines.
(f) Permit and regulatory approval requirements for applicable candidates for recycled water use.
(1) Building Permit. As required by Section 8.08.050, an approved building permit from the City shall be required for the use of recycled water. An administrative fee shall be imposed to cover cost of administering and implementing the recycled water use requirements of this Section and shall be set by City Council resolution. The administrative fee shall be assessed and paid to the City by the permit applicant at the time of issuance of the building permit. (2) Conditional approval for use of recycled water. Applicant shall receive conditional approval for use of recycled water from LACDPH. LACDPH may also require the applicant receive conditional approval for use of recycled water from DDW according to the Guidelines. Applicant shall be responsible for filing required application(s) for recycled water service pursuant to this Section with LACDPH and DDW. Application requirements shall be pursuant to the Guidelines and as required by all applicable regulatory bodies. The City will not file applications to LACDPH and DDW on behalf of the applicant. The City will not issue a building permit until the necessary approvals or conditional approvals are obtained from LACDPH.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) 9 of 11
(3) Other permits and regulatory approvals. In addition to any permit required under this Section, the applicant must obtain and comply with all other required authorizations and permits and all other regulatory approvals from all City departments, and state and federal agencies.
(g) Termination of service. The City may discontinue recycled water service to a facility for the following reasons:
(1) Non-payment of bills. A service may be discontinued for nonpayment of any water charges of a customer, whether or not the payment delinquency is associated with recycled water service at the service connection or at any other City recycled or domestic water service connection of the same customer. (2) Benefit of public safety. Service may be discontinued if, at any point in the City’s distribution system, the recycled water does not meet the requirements of regulatory agencies. Service would, in such case, be restored at such time as recycled water again meets the requirements of regulatory agencies, or at such time as the City supplements the recycled water system with water from other sources.
(h) Violations. In addition to any criminal, civil or other legal remedy established by law that may be pursued to address violations of the municipal code, violations of the provisions of this Section are subject to the penalty provisions in Chapter 1.08. (i) Undue hardship appeal procedure.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) 10 of 11
(1) The Director may exempt an owner or applicant from the requirements of this Section, upon showing by the owner that the requirements of this Section would cause undue hardship.
(2) For purposes herein, an “undue hardship” shall be found where imposition of the recycled water requirements would deprive the owner of a development site of all economically beneficial use of that site or otherwise be prohibited by applicable State or Federal law.
(3) An undue hardship application shall include all information necessary for the Director to make a finding of undue hardship, including, but not limited to, documentation showing the factual support for the claimed undue hardship. (4) The Director may approve the undue hardship exemption application, in whole or in part, with or without conditions.
(5) Any exemption granted by the Director is effective immediately.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) 11 of 11
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

SUSAN COLA
Interim City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) Approved and adopted this 22nd day of March, 2022.
_____________________________
Sue Himmelrich, Mayor
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss.

City of Santa Monica )
I, Nikima Newsome, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2697 (CCS) had its introduction on March 8, 2022 and was adopted at the Santa Monica City Council meeting held on March 22, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Brock, Davis, de la Torre, Negrete, Parra, Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
_____________________________________ _________________ Nikima Newsome, Assistant City Clerk Date
A summary of Ordinance No. 2697 (CCS) was duly published pursuant to California Government Code Section 40806.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBAF4C9-8C63-47B9-A014-890E3CC09C7F 4/14/2022

5.A.c
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: ORD - Recycled Water Ordinance (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:

Prepared by: ____________________________Title: __________________________ Signature: ______________________________________ Date: ________________ Email: ____________________________________ Phone: ____________________ FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract # ____________________________ Permit # ___________________________ _________________
Dawn Taffler Vice President
5/13/2022
[email protected] (626) 568-4323
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Ed Yang, Kerwin Allen, Gary Carlton, Jamie Kolkey, Scott Larew, Keith London, John Malady, Todd Reynolds, Dawn Taffler, Gerard Cavaluzzi
None

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Oaks Initiative Disclsoure (Kennedy Jenks) (5052 : Recycled Water Master Plan) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.B
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Award Bid and enter into Agreement with Arcadis U.S., Inc. to Update the City's Domestic Water and Wastewater Master Plans
Recommended Action
Staff Recommends that the City Council:

1. Award RFP# 317 to Arcadis U.S., Inc. to update the City’s Domestic Water & Sanitary Sewer Master Plans for the Public Works Department;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Professional Services Agreement with Arcadis U.S., Inc., in an amount not to exceed $805,160 over a five-year term; and

3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.

Summary
The City’s Public Works Department - Water Resources Division operates and maintains an expansive domestic water and wastewater network that consists of over 200 miles of water mains, over 150 miles of wastewater collection pipes, and over 60 miles of storm drains that collectively serve over 93,000 residents and 2,700 businesses in the City. To help identify future improvements to the City’s water distribution and wastewater collection systems, the Water Resources Division issued a request for proposal (RFP) to update its Domestic Water and Wastewater Master Plans, which also includes updating the existing hydraulic models to incorporate water supply projects (e.g., Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project, Olympic Well Field Restoration, and Expansion of the Arcadia Water Treatment Plan) that are scheduled to be completed by 2023 to reduce the City’s reliance on imported water supplies. Staff recommends that

5.B
Packet Pg. 63
2 of 6
RFP# 317 be awarded to Arcadis U.S., Inc. and that an agreement be negotiated and executed to update the City’s Domestic Water and Wastewater Master Plans.

Discussion
The City’s Domestic Water and Wastewater Master Plans were last updated in 2014 and 2017, respectively. One of the key objectives in updating the City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plan is to complement the 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan and the City’s goal to reduce its reliance on imported water supplies. The 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan focused on developing local, sustainable, and drought resilient water supplies while this Water/Wastewater Master Plan update focuses on the water infrastructure (e.g., water mains, booster stations, and water reservoirs) that is used to distribute high-quality drinking water and the wastewater infrastructure (e.g., wastewater mains and wastewater pump stations) that is used to collect and safely dispose of wastewater. These water and wastewater master planning efforts are critical components of the City’s overarching sustainable city goals outlined in the 2019 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan to achieve carbon neutrality. Master planning documents are updated periodically to adapt to climate change impacts, such as the current drought conditions experienced in the Southwest United States, as well as incorporate any new or changes in water and wastewater assets, assess the condition of existing infrastructure, and align with other planning efforts in the City (e.g., 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan Update, and the 2022 6
th Cycle Housing Element) for the utility. In
addition, the City’s water and wastewater hydraulic models are in need of an update and calibration as the last model update was over 5 years ago.

A current and well-maintained water and wastewater hydraulic model is essential to provide reliable and continuous operations for the water and wastewater system. The hydraulic models are updated through a combination of techniques including data analysis, flow monitoring, and hydraulic modeling to confirm available capacity, condition, and identify potential constraints in the water and wastewater systems. The master plan updates also include recommendations for capital improvement projects such as pipeline replacements and reservoir improvements to maintain a reliable infrastructure.

5.B
Packet Pg. 64
3 of 6
The City’s water production, treatment, and distribution system consists of 11 groundwater production wells, the Charnock Treatment Plant, the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant, four water storage reservoirs, three booster pump stations, and over 200 miles of water mains to distribute high-quality drinking water to the community. To increase local water supply and reduce the City’s reliance on imported water supplies, the City is constructing a new well head treatment facility to restore the Olympic Well Field to its full production capacity, a new groundwater recharge well to replenish local groundwater aquifers, and upgrading its Arcadia Water Treatment Plant to increase production of locally sourced, high-quality drinking water.

To support the goal to reduce the City’s reliance on imported water supplies, the City began construction of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) in 2020 to provide a drought resilient water supply for the City. The SWIP is scheduled to be completed in Fall of 2022 and will use stormwater, dry weather urban runoff, and municipal wastewater to produce advanced treated recycled water for irrigation, dual plumbing uses (e.g., toilet flushing and cooling towers), and to recharge local groundwater aquifers. The last update of the City’s wastewater master plan was in 2017 when the Wastewater Master Plan was completed.

The primary objective of RFP# 317 is to update the City’s Domestic Water and Wastewater Master Plans and hydraulic models to incorporate new water supply projects that were outlined in the City’s 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan. The updated models would then be used to confirm current and available capacity, identify future domestic water and wastewater system improvements, and determine future water/wastewater infrastructure projects to guide future investments. . The best qualified firm, Arcadis U.S. Inc., included additional services that are optional to enhance the requested scope of services by the City for the Water and Wastewater Master Plan.

These optional services are not guaranteed to the consultant and funds would only be expended for each optional service as authorized by City staff. These additional

5.B
Packet Pg. 65
4 of 6
enhancements to the City’s base scope of service, which total approximately $305,000, includes:
• Integration/implementation support for automated metering infrastructure and align the City’s water/wastewater master plans to realize improved water usage efficiency and reduced water loss on the customer’s side once implementation is complete. Arcadis would provide services to the City that includes technical support on software integration, integration and acceptance testing of the automated metering infrastructure, and general program/technical support • Additional field testing/data collection (e.g., supplemental sewer flow monitoring in addition to what has been allocated in the base scope of services) to further refine the hydraulic model in high flow or key service areas that may potentially be bottlenecks to identify if future improvements may be necessary. • Wastewater quality assessment to enhance operations for the City’s Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP). This optional task would focus on identifying key industrial wastewater discharger(s) in the City that may impact treatment and water quality of the advanced treated recycled water produced at SWIP. • Update the City’s sanitary sewer management plan to ensure compliance with latest regulatory requirements and industry standards.
• Integrate recommended CIP projects from the base scope of services with the Water Resources Division’s new asset management program. A desk-top condition assessment to quantify likelihood and consequence of failure will be used to prioritize future water distribution and wastewater collection system projects.

Vendor Selection
Bidder Recommendation
Best Bidder Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Evaluation Criteria • Project Understanding/Work Plan - 25% of total score • Experience and Technical Competence - 25% of total score • Quality Control and References - 15% of total score
• Cost of Services, Cost Control - 15% of total score
• Value Add/Breadth of Service - 10% of total score

5.B
Packet Pg. 66
5 of 6
• Presentation/Demonstration - 10% of total score
Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.190
Bid Data
Date Posted Posted On Advertise In (City
Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
03/22/2022 City’s Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica
Daily Press
34 05/13/2022
Best Bidder Justification
The proposals were reviewed by a selection panel consisting of staff from the Public Works Department – Water Resources Division. Evaluations were based on the following selection criteria: Project Understanding/Work Plan; Experience and Technical Competence; Quality Control and References; Cost of Services, Cost Control; Value Add/Breadth of Service; and Presentation/Demonstration. Based on these criteria, the selection panel unanimously ranked Arcadis as the best qualified firm to update the City’s Domestic Water and Wastewater Master Plans. Arcadis has vast experience developing water and sewer master plans as well as hydraulic modeling for local agencies including Newport Beach, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Buena Park.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
07/08/14
(Attachment A)
Bid award for preparation of a Sustainable Water Master Plan 03/01/16
(Attachment B)
Bid award for preparation of a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and assistance with water modeling
11/27/18
(Attachment C)
Sustainable Water Master Plan Update and Pathway to Water SelfSufficiency Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Water and Wastewater funds to award a professional services agreement with Arcadis U.S., Inc. to update the City’s Domestic Water and Wastewater Master Plans. The cost of the base scope of services for the Water and Wastewater Master Plan is included in the FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement

5.B
Packet Pg. 67
6 of 6
Program Budget. Award of the agreement would require additional appropriations from the Water and Wastewater Funds in the amount of $152,580 from each enterprise fund’s operating budget as there is sufficient funding in existing fund balance to cover the additional cost.

FY 2022-23 CIP Budget Changes
Additional Funds to be Appropriated
Account Number(s) Amount
C5108600.689000 $152,580
C5008600.689000 $152,580
Professional Services Agreement Request
FY 2022-23 Budget
Request Amount CIP Account # Total Contract Amount
$402,580 C5108600.689000 $402,580
$402,580 C5008600.689000 $402,580
$805,160 Total $805,160
Prepared By: Sunny Wang, Water Resources Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. July 8, 2014 Staff Report (Web Link)
B. March 1, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link)
C. November 27, 2018 Staff Report (Web Link)
D. Oaks Initiative Form

5.B
Packet Pg. 68

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:

Prepared by: ____________________________Title: __________________________ Signature: ______________________________________ Date: ________________ Email: ____________________________________ Phone: ____________________ FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract # ____________________________ Permit # ___________________________ y: ____________________________
______________________________
__
Christine Cotton Senior Vice President
May 13, 2022
[email protected] 213.797.5304
none
none
none
Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Peter Oosterveer, Virginie Duperat-Vergne, Mary Ann Hopkins, Alan Brookes, Wassim Selman
None

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form (5053 : Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.C
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Engineering and Street Services
Subject: Award Construction Contract to Access Pacific, Inc. for Michigan Avenue Greenway & 20th Street Project
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award Bid #SP2474 to Access Pacific, Inc. for construction services for the Michigan Avenue Greenway & 20th Street Project for the Public Works Department;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Access Pacific, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,110,170 (including a 15% contingency);

3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work within contract authority; and

4. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.

Summary
The Michigan Avenue Greenway & 20th Street Project (Project) would complete a segment of the Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Greenway (MANGo) Plan (Attachment A), which aims to create an enhanced east-west cyclist connection from the ocean to Bergamot Station. The Project, 96% funded by grants, local return funds, and transportation impact fees, would construct a two-way protected bike connection and pedestrian path over the 20th Street freeway overcrossing to link Michigan Avenue where it transitions from the south to the north side of the freeway (Figure 1).

5.C
Packet Pg. 70
2 of 7
Figure 1: Project area
The Project would substantially reduce the walk and bike distances between the Pico Neighborhood (south of the I-10 Freeway) and the Bergamot Area, encouraging short trips on foot and longer bike trips. Staff recommends Access Pacific, Inc. to provide construction services in an amount not to exceed $2,110,170 (including 15% contingency).

Discussion
The Michigan Avenue Greenway & 20th Street Project would deliver on the community’s vision to create an inviting Neighborhood Greenway in the Pico neighborhood and support Santa Monica’s citywide goals to increase bicycle and pedestrian trips. The Project would serve major destinations locally and regionally including Santa Monica College, Santa Monica High School, Crossroads School, St.

John’s Medical Center, SM-UCLA Hospital, Santa Monica City Hall, Edison Language Academy, and Bergamot Arts Center. The Project also serves regional trips to Culver

5.C
Packet Pg. 71
3 of 7
City and Los Angeles via the Expo Regional ped/bike path and walking and biking trips to the 17th St/SMC Expo light rail station.

During the MANGo community outreach and planning process, low lighting levels on and adjacent to the 20th Street overcrossing of the I-10 Freeway, lack of bicycle intersection treatments, and unclear pathways were identified as known barriers for walking and bicycling in this location (Figure 1). The proximity of the existing sidewalk to 20th Street vehicle traffic creates an unwelcoming atmosphere that deters pedestrians. The Project would address these concerns with the addition of wayfinding, fencing, and lighting to significantly improve the conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing over the I-10 Freeway.

Location-specific treatments shown in Figure 2 include:
• Creation of a two-way protected bike facility and pedestrian path linking Michigan Avenue on the north and south sides of the I-10 Freeway. • Enhanced lighting on the new pathway.
• Improved fencing along the new pathway to improve the walking environment and overall attractiveness and sense of security.
• Bike markings and bike detection at the intersection of 20th Street and the I-10 Freeway offramp to transition riders and pedestrians to/from the pathway crossing.
• Digital speed feedback signage with posted speed limits along 20th Street northbound in advance of the bikeway crossing.
• Wayfinding signage.
• New accessible curb ramps at crossings.

5.C
Packet Pg. 72
4 of 7
Figure 2: Project improvements

5.C
Packet Pg. 73
5 of 7
Vendor Selection
Bidder Recommendation
Best Bidder Access Pacific, Inc.

Evaluation Criteria Price; the ability, capacity, and skill of the bidder to perform the services; the capacity of the bidder to perform the contract within the time specified; the sufficiency of the bidder’s financial resources; the reputation and experience of the bidder.

Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.180
Bid Data
Date
Posted Posted On Advertise In (City Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
5/19/2022 City's Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica Daily
Press
65 6/10/2022
Best Bidder Justification
Staff recommends Access Pacific, Inc., the lowest bidder, as the best bidder based on bid price and completion of past projects for the City of Santa Monica, including the North Beach Trail Improvements and Pedestrian Improvements at Four Schools projects. Access Pacific, Inc. is also contracted with the City to construct bikeway and pedestrian safety improvements on the 17th Street/SMC/Expo Bike Path Connection and Pico Blvd Pedestrian Safety Improvements Projects. On previous and current projects, Access Pacific, Inc. demonstrated the ability to produce a high-quality work product while working in a safe manner in City streets and neighborhoods.

Public Outreach
Construction is expected to begin between late 2022 and early 2023 and last for six to eight months. Prior to and during construction, City staff and the contractor would distribute notifications to adjacent properties, Crossroads School, and Pico Neighborhood Association regarding the project scope, construction schedule, and potential impacts, as well as mitigation measures that would be included in the traffic control plan. Periodic updates would be provided, as necessary. Social media would be utilized to notify the public about general construction updates.

Submittals Received
Access Pacific, Inc. $1,834,930 PALP Inc. dba Excel
Paving Company
$2,794,243

5.C
Packet Pg. 74
6 of 7
Past Council Actions
Meeting Description
2/11/2014 (Attachment A) Adoption of MANGo Concept Plan Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Local Return, Miscellaneous Grants, Special Revenue Source, and Stormwater Funds to award a contract to Access Pacific, Inc. to provide construction services for the Michigan Avenue Greenway & 20th Street Project. Award of the contract would require a budget appropriation of $835,474 from the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) fund balance. TIF funds are programmed during the planning phase of a project and the construction phase is typically two to three years later. Staff anticipated higher costs due to inflation in the construction sector and reserved TIF fund balance in case bids came in higher than initial estimates. This appropriation will be from the reserve. All other funds are included in the FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program budget for this project.

FY 2022-23 CIP Budget Changes
Release Fund Balance Appropriate Funds
Account Number(s) Amount Account Number(s) Amount

10.370332 $835,475 C1006880.689000 $835,475
FY2022-23
Request Amount CIP Account # Total Contract Amount
$798,000 C2006680.689250 $798,000
$22,749 C2006680.689260 $22,749
$1,019,375 C1006880.689000 $1,019,375
$41,576 C2706880.689120 $41,576
$3,470 C1005740.689000 $3,470
$150,000 C1007600.689000 $150,000
$75,000 C5206880.689000 $75,000
Total $2,110,170

5.C
Packet Pg. 75
7 of 7
Prepared By: Robert Zak, Civil Engineer
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Adoption of MANGo Concept Plan (Weblink)
B. Oaks Form (Access Pacific, Inc.)

5.C
Packet Pg. 76

CITY OF SANTA MONICA OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:

Prepared by: Title:

Signature: Date:

Email: Phone:

FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract # Permit #

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Oaks Form (Access Pacific, Inc.) (5075 : Award Construction Contract for Michigan Ave Greenway & 20th Street Project) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.D
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Adoption of Resolution Making AB 361 Findings Regarding Teleconference Meetings
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution making the findings required by AB 361 to continue teleconference meetings of the City Council and City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces through August 25, 2022.

Discussion
AB 361 authorizes public agencies to conduct meetings by teleconference, including video conference, without compliance with all of the Brown Act’s limitations on such meetings, while a state of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic remains active and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.

Initial reliance on AB 361 required the following: (1) there must be a proclaimed state of emergency; and (2) one of the following circumstances exist – (a) state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or (b) the legislative body has determined by majority vote that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees. See Government Code Section 54953(e)(1) (all citations herein are to the Government Code). Once the initial invocation of AB 361 is made, continued reliance on AB 361 for subsequent meetings requires the following: (1) either the proclaimed state of emergency remains active or state or local officials have imposed or recommended

5.D
Packet Pg. 78
2 of 5
measures to promote social distancing; and (2) not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time under the AB 361 rules, and every 30 days thereafter, the legislative body, by majority vote, finds that it has reconsidered the circumstances of the emergency and at least one of the following circumstances exists – (a) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person or (b) state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. See Section 54953(e)(3). Both of the conditions to continue to rely on AB 361 are presently satisfied. The Governor’s State of Emergency Declaration, issued on March 4, 2020, and the City’s declaration of a local emergency issued March 13, 2020, as supplemented and modified through the 43rd Supplement, remain in place and have not been lifted. And, the most recent Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Order of the Health Officer, issued April 21, 2022, (“Health Officer Order” or “HOO”), continues to recommend social distancing as one measure to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

The Requirements of AB 361.

If a public agency invokes AB 361, the notice and participation requirements for teleconferenced meetings are as follows: (1) each notice of the meeting and agenda must identify the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment by either a call-in option or an internet-based service option; (2) teleconferenced meetings must be conducted in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body; (3) public comments cannot be required to be submitted in advance of the meeting (though this may remain an option); (4) the public must be able to attend the meeting via call-in option or internet-based service option; (5) the public must have an opportunity to address the legislative body directly and offer comment in real time via call-in option or internet-based service option; (6) if there is a disruption that prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting using the call-in option or internetbased service option, or if there is a disruption within the public agency’s control that prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the legislative body shall take no further action on

5.D
Packet Pg. 79
3 of 5
items appearing on the agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored; and (7) where, as in Santa Monica, the legislative body does not provide a timed public comment period but takes public comment separately on each agenda item, it shall allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda item to allow public members the opportunity to provide public comment, including time for members of the public to be recognized for the purpose of providing public comment. See Section 54953(e)(2).

The Current Findings Post-Winter Surge.

While not experiencing the high case levels and positivity rates as seen during the height of the winter surge, the most recent Health Officer Order indicates that Los Angeles County is currently experiencing increases in COVID-19 cases and test positivity rates and that related hospitalizations are no longer in decline, which may be attributed to the more transmissible BA.2 subvariant spreading in LA County. Indeed, the testing positivity rate in LA County has been increasing in June and July 2022, and, as of July 11, 2022, LA County has confirmed 3,178,242 cases of COVID-19 within the County, with 14,448 new cases reported for the weekend of July 9 – 10, 2022 alone, and has continued to advise that public health measures remain required to prevent the further spread of COVID-19. The HOO continues to focus the public health response to COVID-19 in Los Angeles County, among other things, to protect the most vulnerable among us and strongly recommends masks, regardless of vaccination status, in indoor public settings. In particular, the HOO explains that “[m]asks are most likely to reduce the spread of COVID-19 when they are widely used by people in public settings.” Further, the recent increase in cases and hospitalizations due to COVID-19 have arisen such that the LA County believes it could be in the “high” transmission category and potentially under an indoor mask mandate by the end of July.

Members of Boards and Commissions previously voiced concern about being required to return to in-person meetings given that, as validated by the Health Officer Order, many people, including those with identified underlying medical conditions, unvaccinated older adults, people from ethnic and racial minority groups, remain at risk for severe illness from COVID-19 (more likely to be hospitalized, need intensive care,

5.D
Packet Pg. 80
4 of 5
require a ventilator to help them breathe, or die). Accordingly, on March 22, April 12, May 10, May 24, June 14, and July 12, 2022, the City Council adopted findings under AB 361 to allow Boards and Commissions to elect to continue meeting remotely. The findings proposed by the attached resolution will allow Boards and Commissions to continue to elect to meet remotely through August 25, 2022.

In light of AB 361, the continuing COVID-19 emergency, the continuing recommendations by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health of social distancing as one mechanism for preventing the spread of COVID-19, and the continued threats to health and safety posed by indoor public meetings with large attendance, staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed resolution making the findings required to continue to invoke AB 361. Doing so will allow City Council and City Board, Commission, and Task Force meetings to continue to occur by teleconference after August 11, 2022 (which is when the AB 361 resolution adopted on July 12, 2022 will expire) without compliance with the teleconferencing requirements set out in Section 54953(b)(3) that would otherwise apply. An additional resolution will be required to be adopted at the Council meeting on August 23, 2022 to ensure continued compliance with the 30-day findings requirement for Board and Commission meetings to be held after August 25, 2022.

The procedures that were set up for City Council meetings when it held meetings remotely, providing for public attendance and comment through a call-in or internetbased service option, satisfy the requirements of AB 361. The City Clerk will work with City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces to ensure that their meeting procedures for all meetings continue to similarly comply with the requirements of AB 361.

As indicated above, although the attached AB 361 Resolution authorizes all Boards and Commissions to continue to meet remotely, a Board or Commission can affirmatively decide to meet in person, just as the City Council decided for itself. In other words, for Boards and Commissions, the default will be remote meetings unless and until any decision to meet in person. As indicated above, the Council will need to make AB 361 findings anew every 30 days to permit this option to continue.

5.D
Packet Pg. 81
5 of 5
Fiscal Impacts
Budget for conduct of Council and City Board, Commission, and Task Force meetings is included in the FY 2022-23 budget.

Prepared By: Michelle Hugard, Deputy City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. AB361 Resolution

5.D
Packet Pg. 82
1 City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY AB 361

TO PERMIT COUNCIL AND CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, AND TASK FORCE

MEETINGS TO CONTINUE TO BE CONDUCTED BY TELECONFERENCE WHILE THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY REMAINS IN PLACE
WHEREAS international, national, state, and local health and governmental authorities are responding to an outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus named “SARS-CoV-2,” and the disease it causes has been named “coronavirus disease 2019,” abbreviated COVID-19, (“COVID-19”); and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California declared a state of emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Department of Public Health declared a local emergency and local public health emergency to aid the regional healthcare and governmental community in responding to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States of America declared a national emergency and announced that the federal government would make

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: AB361 Resolution (5176 : AB361 Findings for Teleconference) 2 emergency funding available to assist state and local governments in preventing the spread of and addressing the effects of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager, in his role as the Director of Emergency Services, (“Director of Emergency Services”) issued an Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Santa Monica Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency (“Executive Order”) declaring a local emergency pursuant to Chapter 2.16 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to ensure the availability of mutual aid and an effective response to COVID-19 and this local emergency was restated on March 14, 2020, through a revised declaration of local emergency to ensure compliance with all digital signature requirements (“Revised Executive Order”); and WHEREAS, the Governor’s March 4, 2020 declaration of a state of emergency based on the COVID-19 pandemic remains in place; and
WHEREAS, the Proclamation of Existence of a Local Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency Services on March 13, 2020, has been ratified by the City Council on March 19, 2020, April 6, 2020, April 14, 2020, May 12, 2020, May 26, 2020, June 9, 2020, June 23, 2020, July 14, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 8, 2020, October 27, 2020, and December 15, 2020, January 26, 2021, March 23, 2021 effective May 22, 2021, July 13, 2021, August 24, 2021, October 26, 2021, December 7, 2021, March 8, 2022 effective May 7, 2022, May 24, 2022, and July 12, 2022 with the result that the proclamation of a local emergency based on the COVID-19 pandemic remains in place; and WHEREAS, throughout the emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“LACDPH”) has issued a series of

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: AB361 Resolution (5176 : AB361 Findings for Teleconference) 3 Health Officer Orders containing mandates and recommendations for keeping safe and preventing the spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Sections 54950-54963, allows for meetings of legislative bodies of a local agency, as those terms are defined in the Brown Act, to occur via teleconferencing subject to certain requirements, particularly that the legislative body notice each teleconference location of each member that will be participating in the public meeting, that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, and that members of the public be allowed to address the legislative body at each teleconference location, see Government Code Section 54953(b)(3); and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill No. 361 (“AB 361”), which, until January 1, 2024, authorizes a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing or when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 requires legislative bodies that hold teleconferenced meetings under its abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allow members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and to conduct the meeting

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: AB361 Resolution (5176 : AB361 Findings for Teleconference) 4 in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 requires the legislative body to take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from closing the public comment period and the opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified; and WHEREAS, when there is a continuing state of emergency, or when state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, AB 361 requires a legislative body to make specified findings not later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting pursuant to these provisions, and to make those findings every 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to meet under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, October 26, 2021, November 23, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, April 8, 2022, May 10, 2022, May 24, 2022, June 14, 2022, and July 12, 2022 the City

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: AB361 Resolution (5176 : AB361 Findings for Teleconference) 5 Council adopted Resolution Numbers 11362, 11378, 11384, 11390, 11393, 11399, 11404, 11407, 11413, 11417, 11421, 11424, and 11439 respectively, which made the findings required by AB 361 to allow the City Council and all City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces to continue to meet under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures, and authorized the City Council and all City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces to conduct meetings under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures, without complying with the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 54953(e)(2); and
WHEREAS, in light of the continuing State and local declarations of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the most recent Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Order of the Health Officer, issued April 21, 2022, which continues to recommend social distancing as one measure to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and to protect the most vulnerable among us in indoor public settings, the City Council desires to again make the findings required by AB 361 to allow the City Council and all City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces to continue to meet under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the State and local declarations of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic remain in place, and that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability to meet safely in person.

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: AB361 Resolution (5176 : AB361 Findings for Teleconference) 6 SECTION 2. The City Council finds that local officials, namely, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, has continued to recommend measures to promote social distancing.

SECTION 3. As a result of the findings in Sections 1 through 2 above, the City Council and all City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces are authorized to conduct meetings under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures, without complying with the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 54953(e)(2).

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Resolution would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: AB361 Resolution (5176 : AB361 Findings for Teleconference) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.E
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Adoption of Resolution Approving Final Tract Map No. 83099 for 710 Broadway
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Final Tract Map No. 83099 for a 61-unit airspace subdivision located at 710 Broadway to allow the commercial and residential components of the project to be separately leased, financed, or sold, the option of 280 residential units to be sold as condominiums, and to vacate a portion of an alley (7th Court).

Summary
This report transmits for City Council approval a Final Tract Map for the following condominium project. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map was approved by the Planning Commission on June 16, 2021. A timely filing of the Final Map was made to the County or City prior to the Map’s expiration date. According to Section 66452.6(d) of the Subdivision Map Act, once a timely filing is made to the County or City, subsequent actions of the local agency, including, but not limited to, processing, approving, and recording of a map, may lawfully occur after the map’s expiration date.

TRACT MAP ADDRESS SUBDIVIDER UNITS
No. 83099 710 Broadway The VONS Companies Inc.
and SAFEWAY Inc. (Owners)
280 units
The following table provides a brief summary of the project:

Zoning District Downtown Community Plan – Lincoln Transition (LT) and Transit Adjacent (TA)

5.E
Packet Pg. 89
2 of 3
Parcel Area 108,501 SF (combined)
Parcel Dimensions 340’ W x 300’ D (combined)
Existing On-Site
Improvements (Year Built)
35,768 SF, two-story commercial building - VONS (1995)
– all improvements to be demolished
Rent Control Status Commercial (Exempt)
Historic Resources
Inventory Status
Subject property is not listed on the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory
AHPP Compliance 84 on-site affordable units
Discussion
On November 10, 2020, the applicant submitted a Vesting Tentative Tract Map application (20ENT-0268) to the City Planning Division, involving a 61-unit airspace subdivision that allows the commercial and residential components of the project to be separately leased, financed, or sold; the option of 280 residential units to be sold as condominiums; and to vacate a portion of an alley (7th Court) in the Downtown Community Plan – Lincoln Transition (LT) and Transit Adjacent (TA) Zones. After a public hearing and careful review of the record and staff recommendations, the Planning Commission approved a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the above project on June 16, 2021. The action of the Planning Commission was based on its findings that the proposed subdivision will have no significant environmental impact and is in conformance with all state and local laws and regulations and applicable General Plan Elements. The Final Map conforms to the Tentative Map. As a vesting tentative tract map application, its associated approval confers a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the vesting map is deemed complete by the City. In this case, the application was deemed complete on May 1, 2021, and therefore, the development is subject to the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance (as amended) in effect at that time.

The developer will be required to show proof of payment of the condominium tax of $280,000 prior to issuance of a building permit if the units are sold as ownership. The Final Map has been approved by the Los Angeles County Engineer’s office and certified

5.E
Packet Pg. 90
3 of 3
by the City Engineer for conformance with the Tentative Map and conditions thereon, the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. The City Engineer’s office indicates that there are no required off-site public improvements. The City Attorney's office has approved the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Final Map as complying with the conditions of the Tentative Map and applicable laws.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action.

Prepared By: Grace Page, Senior Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. CDD - Reso - Final Parcel Map - 710 Broadway 07.26.22

5.E
Packet Pg. 91
1 City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING
THE FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 83099
TO SUBDIVIDE A PROPERTY AT 710 BROADWAY
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2021, the Santa Monica Planning Commission approved a vesting tentative tract map to create a 61-unit airspace subdivision located at 710 Broadway to allow the commercial and residential components of the project to be separately leased, financed, or sold, the option of 280 residential units to be sold as condominiums, and to vacate a portion of an alley (7th Court); and WHEREAS, a timely filing of a final tract map was made to the County of Los Angeles prior to expiration of the vesting tentative tract map; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66452.6(d) of the Government Code, if a timely filing of a final map is made to the City or County, then the City may process, approve, and record a final map after the expiration of the vesting tentative map; and WHEREAS, the final parcel map conforms to the vesting tentative tract map; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans.

5.E.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: CDD - Reso - Final Parcel Map - 710 Broadway 07.26.22 [Revision 2] (5203 : Adoption of Final Map for 710 Broadway) 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Final Map for Tract No. 83099 in the City of Santa Monica is hereby accepted and approved.

SECTION 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to endorse upon the face of said Map this order authenticated by the Seal of the City of Santa Monica.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

5.E.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: CDD - Reso - Final Parcel Map - 710 Broadway 07.26.22 [Revision 2] (5203 : Adoption of Final Map for 710 Broadway) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.F
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Lori Gentles, Chief People Officer, Human Resources Department Subject: Adoption of a Resolution accepting the tentative agreement and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute Memoranda of Understanding with the California Teamsters Local 911
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the proposed Resolution (Attachment A) accepting the tentative agreement and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Teamsters Local 911;

2. Adopt the salary schedule (Attachment B); and

3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.

Summary
In accordance with the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), negotiations between the City and the California Teamsters Local 911 (Teamsters) have resulted in a tentative agreement (TA) regarding a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Staff seeks Council authorization to enter into this agreement with this bargaining unit.

Teamsters finalized the ratification voting process, approving the terms of their TA. City staff recommend that the Council approve the ratified TA to establish a successor agreement between the City and Teamsters. Staff have ongoing negotiations with two remaining bargaining units.

Discussion
The MOU between the City and Teamsters establishes wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) in

5.F
Packet Pg. 94
2 of 4
California, local public agencies negotiate with exclusively recognized employee organizations on wages, hours, and working conditions. The City currently is still in negotiations with two of these employee organizations (often referred to as bargaining groups or unions) whose collective bargaining agreements with the City expired on June 30, 2022.

The overall policy of the City has been to maintain competitive benefits and working conditions in a high-cost geographic labor market in order to retain and attract a highquality workforce to serve our community across a wide range of specialized services.

Since most, though not all, City jobs are comparable to those in other (competing) municipal organizations, the City has traditionally looked to full-service cities in our region of similar size and financial strength for labor market comparisons. The terms of the tentative agreement bring the City closer in alignment with our eleven (11) comparable peer cities while simultaneously preserving a level of benefits that will keep the City of Santa Monica competitive in a tight labor market. Peer cities include Anaheim, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, El Segundo, Glendale, Inglewood, Pasadena, Redondo Beach, Santa Barbara, and Torrance. The City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles may also be included as a comparable agency depending on the classifications being surveyed.

The substantive changes for the TA with Teamsters is outlined below:

California Teamsters Local 911
The California Teamsters Local 911 (Teamsters) represents 414 members comprised of skilled trades and maintenance classifications.
• Term of Agreement: July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2025. • July 3, 2022 = 4.5% salary increase effective July 3, 2022. • July 1, 2022 = $5,000 Trades and Maintenance Signing Bonus. • July 1, 2023 = 3% salary increase and a $3,500 Trades and Maintenance Signing Bonus.

5.F
Packet Pg. 95
3 of 4
• July 1, 2024 = 2% salary increase and a $3,500 Trades and Maintenance Signing Bonus.
• Add Cesar Chavez and Juneteenth as paid holidays.
• Increase to Temporary Upgrade Pay; employees currently receive $1.25 per hour while serving in a higher-level classification. This change will provide a minimum 5% salary increase, which will align them with the temporary upgrade pay provided for in other bargaining units’ MOUs.
• Re-openers regarding: health, safety and mental awareness; compensation studies; staffing needs; service recognition; and the manner in which holidays are compensated for employees who end up working on the actual holiday. • Water Division bonuses:
o $75 bi-weekly, $125 bi-weekly or $175 bi-weekly bonus for Water Treatment, Wastewater Collection, Water Distribution Certification bonuses, depending on the level of the certification.
• Employees who are assigned and respond to a mutual aid team shall be compensated for “portal to portal” at the straight-time rate.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The total estimated cost of the negotiated changes contained in the tentative agreement presented in this report is $3,512,507 for FY 2022-23. The budget impact of these changes was included in the FY 2021-22 through FY 2027-28 Five-Year Financial Forecast for the General Fund. If the changes are approved, staff will appropriate the FY 2022-23 changes in Non-Departmental for the General Fund and all other funds as listed in the table below. The funds will be transferred to the relevant funds and department accounts along with the FY 2021-22 Year-end Budget changes being presented to Council on October 25, 2022.

Fund
# Fund Name Total
01 General Fund $1,185,038
11 Beach Recreation Fund 235,660

5.F
Packet Pg. 96
4 of 4
50 Water Fund 311,397
51 Wastewater Fund 154,699
53 Pier Fund 36,867
54 Resource Recovery & Recycling Fund 663,370
57 Airport Fund 52,058
59 Cemetery Fund 27,771
60 Big Blue Bus Fund 694,662
70 Vehicle Management Fund 150,985
Total all funds $3,512,507
Prepared By: Ericka Reinke, Senior HR Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5%
B. Teamsters TA RESO 7.26.22

5.F
Packet Pg. 97
CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 (IBT)
Salary Schedule for July 26, 2022 City Council Meeting
Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 540 1 30.13 5,222.00 62,664.00 2,410.15
540 2 31.62 5,480.00 65,760.00 2,529.23
540 3 33.47 5,802.00 69,624.00 2,677.85
540 4 35.34 6,125.00 73,500.00 2,826.92
540 5 37.19 6,447.00 77,364.00 2,975.54
465 1 29.26 5,072.00 60,864.00 2,340.92
465 2 30.71 5,323.00 63,876.00 2,456.77
465 3 32.52 5,636.00 67,632.00 2,601.23
465 4 34.32 5,949.00 71,388.00 2,745.69
465 5 36.13 6,262.00 75,144.00 2,890.15
355 1 27.38 4,745.00 56,940.00 2,190.00
355 2 28.73 4,979.00 59,748.00 2,298.00
355 3 30.42 5,272.00 63,264.00 2,433.23
355 4 32.11 5,565.00 66,780.00 2,568.46
355 5 33.80 5,858.00 70,296.00 2,703.69
465 1 29.26 5,072.00 60,864.00 2,340.92
465 2 30.71 5,323.00 63,876.00 2,456.77
465 3 32.52 5,636.00 67,632.00 2,601.23
465 4 34.32 5,949.00 71,388.00 2,745.69
465 5 36.13 6,262.00 75,144.00 2,890.15
355 1 27.38 4,745.00 56,940.00 2,190.00
355 2 28.73 4,979.00 59,748.00 2,298.00
355 3 30.42 5,272.00 63,264.00 2,433.23
355 4 32.11 5,565.00 66,780.00 2,568.46
355 5 33.80 5,858.00 70,296.00 2,703.69
355 1 27.38 4,745.00 56,940.00 2,190.00
355 2 28.73 4,979.00 59,748.00 2,298.00
355 3 30.42 5,272.00 63,264.00 2,433.23
355 4 32.11 5,565.00 66,780.00 2,568.46
355 5 33.80 5,858.00 70,296.00 2,703.69
135 1 23.10 4,004.00 48,048.00 1,848.00
135 2 24.24 4,202.00 50,424.00 1,939.38
135 3 25.67 4,449.00 53,388.00 2,053.38
135 4 27.09 4,696.00 56,352.00 2,167.38
135 5 28.52 4,943.00 59,316.00 2,281.38
575 1 30.70 5,322.00 63,864.00 2,456.31
575 2 32.22 5,585.00 67,020.00 2,577.69
575 3 34.11 5,913.00 70,956.00 2,729.08
575 4 36.01 6,242.00 74,904.00 2,880.92
575 5 37.90 6,570.00 78,840.00 3,032.31
790 1 34.06 5,903.00 70,836.00 2,724.46
790 2 35.74 6,195.00 74,340.00 2,859.23
790 3 37.84 6,559.00 78,708.00 3,027.23
790 4 39.95 6,924.00 83,088.00 3,195.69
790 5 42.05 7,288.00 87,456.00 3,363.69
AIRPORT LINE SERVICE WORKER 3002 IBT
AIRPORT MAINTENANCE CREW LDR 3003 IBT
Class Title
AIRPORT GSE MECHANIC 3000 IBT
AIRPORT LINE SERVICE CREW LDR 3001 IBT
BIN TRUCK DRIVER 3086 IBT
CARPENTER 3006 IBT
AIRPORT MAINTENANCE WORKER 3004 IBT
AQUATICS MAINTENANCE WORKER 3005 IBT
CARPENTER CREW LEADER 3007 IBT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5% (5244 : IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 500 1 29.58 5,128.00 61,536.00 2,366.77
500 2 31.04 5,381.00 64,572.00 2,483.54
500 3 32.87 5,698.00 68,376.00 2,629.85
500 4 34.70 6,014.00 72,168.00 2,775.69
500 5 36.53 6,331.00 75,972.00 2,922.00
060 1 21.14 3,664.00 43,968.00 1,691.08
060 2 22.18 3,845.00 46,140.00 1,774.62
060 3 23.49 4,071.00 48,852.00 1,878.92
060 4 24.79 4,297.00 51,564.00 1,983.23
060 5 26.09 4,523.00 54,276.00 2,087.54
060 1 21.14 3,664.00 43,968.00 1,691.08
060 2 22.18 3,845.00 46,140.00 1,774.62
060 3 23.49 4,071.00 48,852.00 1,878.92
060 4 24.79 4,297.00 51,564.00 1,983.23
060 5 26.09 4,523.00 54,276.00 2,087.54
125 1 22.86 3,963.00 47,556.00 1,829.08
125 2 23.99 4,159.00 49,908.00 1,919.54
125 3 25.41 4,404.00 52,848.00 2,032.62
125 4 26.82 4,648.00 55,776.00 2,145.23
125 5 28.23 4,893.00 58,716.00 2,258.31
295 1 26.33 4,563.00 54,756.00 2,106.00
295 2 27.62 4,788.00 57,456.00 2,209.85
295 3 29.25 5,070.00 60,840.00 2,340.00
295 4 30.87 5,351.00 64,212.00 2,469.69
295 5 32.50 5,633.00 67,596.00 2,599.85
920 1 36.84 6,385.00 76,620.00 2,946.92
920 2 38.66 6,701.00 80,412.00 3,092.77
920 3 40.93 7,095.00 85,140.00 3,274.62
920 4 43.21 7,489.00 89,868.00 3,456.46
920 5 45.48 7,883.00 94,596.00 3,638.31
770 1 34.18 5,924.00 71,088.00 2,734.15
770 2 35.86 6,216.00 74,592.00 2,868.92
770 3 37.97 6,582.00 78,984.00 3,037.85
770 4 40.08 6,947.00 83,364.00 3,206.31
770 5 42.19 7,313.00 87,756.00 3,375.23
755 1 33.47 5,801.00 69,612.00 2,677.38
755 2 35.12 6,088.00 73,056.00 2,809.85
755 3 37.19 6,446.00 77,352.00 2,975.08
755 4 39.25 6,804.00 81,648.00 3,140.31
755 5 41.32 7,162.00 85,944.00 3,305.54
235 1 25.22 4,371.00 52,452.00 2,017.38
235 2 26.46 4,587.00 55,044.00 2,117.08
235 3 28.02 4,856.00 58,272.00 2,241.23
235 4 29.57 5,126.00 61,512.00 2,365.85
235 5 31.13 5,396.00 64,752.00 2,490.46
235 1 25.22 4,371.00 52,452.00 2,017.38
235 2 26.46 4,587.00 55,044.00 2,117.08
235 3 28.02 4,856.00 58,272.00 2,241.23
235 4 29.57 5,126.00 61,512.00 2,365.85
235 5 31.13 5,396.00 64,752.00 2,490.46
CUSTODIAN I 3009 IBT
9101 IBT
CUSTODIAN II 3010 IBT
CONCRETE FINISHER 3008 IBT
ELECTRICIAN II 3013 IBT
ELECTRONIC COMM/FAREBOX TECH 3014 IBT
DISPATCHER 3011 IBT
ELECTRICAL CREW LEADER 3012 IBT
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I 3015 IBT
9158 IBT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5% (5244 : IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 435 1 28.75 4,983.00 59,796.00 2,299.85
435 2 30.17 5,229.00 62,748.00 2,413.38
435 3 31.94 5,537.00 66,444.00 2,555.54
435 4 33.72 5,844.00 70,128.00 2,697.23
435 5 35.49 6,152.00 73,824.00 2,839.38
435 1 28.75 4,983.00 59,796.00 2,299.85
435 2 30.17 5,229.00 62,748.00 2,413.38
435 3 31.94 5,537.00 66,444.00 2,555.54
435 4 33.72 5,844.00 70,128.00 2,697.23
435 5 35.49 6,152.00 73,824.00 2,839.38
235 1 25.22 4,371.00 52,452.00 2,017.38
235 2 26.46 4,587.00 55,044.00 2,117.08
235 3 28.02 4,856.00 58,272.00 2,241.23
235 4 29.57 5,126.00 61,512.00 2,365.85
235 5 31.13 5,396.00 64,752.00 2,490.46
421 1 29.00 5,026.00 60,312.00 2,319.69
421 2 30.43 5,274.00 63,288.00 2,434.15
421 3 32.22 5,585.00 67,020.00 2,577.69
421 4 34.01 5,895.00 70,740.00 2,720.77
421 5 35.80 6,205.00 74,460.00 2,863.85
235 1 25.22 4,371.00 52,452.00 2,017.38
235 2 26.46 4,587.00 55,044.00 2,117.08
235 3 28.02 4,856.00 58,272.00 2,241.23
235 4 29.57 5,126.00 61,512.00 2,365.85
235 5 31.13 5,396.00 64,752.00 2,490.46
235 1 25.22 4,371.00 52,452.00 2,017.38
235 2 26.46 4,587.00 55,044.00 2,117.08
235 3 28.02 4,856.00 58,272.00 2,241.23
235 4 29.57 5,126.00 61,512.00 2,365.85
235 5 31.13 5,396.00 64,752.00 2,490.46
235 1 25.22 4,371.00 52,452.00 2,017.38
235 2 26.46 4,587.00 55,044.00 2,117.08
235 3 28.02 4,856.00 58,272.00 2,241.23
235 4 29.57 5,126.00 61,512.00 2,365.85
235 5 31.13 5,396.00 64,752.00 2,490.46
235 1 25.22 4,371.00 52,452.00 2,017.38
235 2 26.46 4,587.00 55,044.00 2,117.08
235 3 28.02 4,856.00 58,272.00 2,241.23
235 4 29.57 5,126.00 61,512.00 2,365.85
235 5 31.13 5,396.00 64,752.00 2,490.46
345 1 27.13 4,703.00 56,436.00 2,170.62
345 2 28.47 4,935.00 59,220.00 2,277.69
345 3 30.14 5,225.00 62,700.00 2,411.54
345 4 31.82 5,516.00 66,192.00 2,545.85
345 5 33.50 5,806.00 69,672.00 2,679.69
280 1 26.02 4,510.00 54,120.00 2,081.54
280 2 27.31 4,733.00 56,796.00 2,184.46
280 3 28.91 5,011.00 60,132.00 2,312.77
280 4 30.52 5,290.00 63,480.00 2,441.54
280 5 32.12 5,568.00 66,816.00 2,569.85
EVENT ATTENDANT II 3017 IBT
EVENT ATTENDANT III 3079 IBT
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II 3016 IBT
9159 IBT
FARMERS' MARKET ATTENDANT 3018 IBT
9130 IBT
FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALIST 3019 IBT
9147 IBT
FLEET STOREKEEPER 3020 IBT
GRAFFITI REMOVAL TECHNICIAN 3021 IBT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5% (5244 : IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 170 1 23.88 4,139.00 49,668.00 1,910.31
170 2 25.06 4,344.00 52,128.00 2,004.92
170 3 26.53 4,599.00 55,188.00 2,122.62
170 4 28.01 4,855.00 58,260.00 2,240.77
170 5 29.48 5,110.00 61,320.00 2,358.46
170 1 23.88 4,139.00 49,668.00 1,910.31
170 2 25.06 4,344.00 52,128.00 2,004.92
170 3 26.53 4,599.00 55,188.00 2,122.62
170 4 28.01 4,855.00 58,260.00 2,240.77
170 5 29.48 5,110.00 61,320.00 2,358.46
636 1 31.39 5,441.00 65,292.00 2,511.23
636 2 32.94 5,709.00 68,508.00 2,634.92
636 3 34.88 6,045.00 72,540.00 2,790.00
636 4 36.81 6,381.00 76,572.00 2,945.08
636 5 38.75 6,717.00 80,604.00 3,100.15
949 1 38.69 6,707.00 80,484.00 3,095.54
949 2 40.60 7,038.00 84,456.00 3,248.31
949 3 42.99 7,452.00 89,424.00 3,439.38
949 4 45.38 7,866.00 94,392.00 3,630.46
949 5 47.77 8,280.00 99,360.00 3,821.54
876 1 36.01 6,241.00 74,892.00 2,880.46
876 2 37.78 6,549.00 78,588.00 3,022.62
876 3 40.01 6,935.00 83,220.00 3,200.77
876 4 42.23 7,320.00 87,840.00 3,378.46
876 5 44.45 7,705.00 92,460.00 3,556.15
490 1 29.49 5,112.00 61,344.00 2,359.38
490 2 30.95 5,364.00 64,368.00 2,475.69
490 3 32.77 5,680.00 68,160.00 2,621.54
490 4 34.59 5,995.00 71,940.00 2,766.92
490 5 36.41 6,311.00 75,732.00 2,912.77
375 1 27.59 4,783.00 57,396.00 2,207.54
375 2 28.96 5,019.00 60,228.00 2,316.46
375 3 30.66 5,315.00 63,780.00 2,453.08
375 4 32.37 5,610.00 67,320.00 2,589.23
375 5 34.07 5,905.00 70,860.00 2,725.38
202 1 24.60 4,264.00 51,168.00 1,968.00
202 2 25.81 4,474.00 53,688.00 2,064.92
202 3 27.33 4,738.00 56,856.00 2,186.77
202 4 28.85 5,001.00 60,012.00 2,308.15
202 5 30.37 5,264.00 63,168.00 2,429.54
876 1 36.01 6,241.00 74,892.00 2,880.46
876 2 37.78 6,549.00 78,588.00 3,022.62
876 3 40.01 6,935.00 83,220.00 3,200.77
876 4 42.23 7,320.00 87,840.00 3,378.46
876 5 44.45 7,705.00 92,460.00 3,556.15
950 1 38.85 6,734.00 80,808.00 3,108.00
950 2 40.77 7,066.00 84,792.00 3,261.23
950 3 43.17 7,482.00 89,784.00 3,453.23
950 4 45.56 7,897.00 94,764.00 3,644.77
950 5 47.96 8,313.00 99,756.00 3,836.77
GROUNDSKEEPER 3022 IBT
9134 IBT
HVAC ASSISTANT 3023 IBT
IRRIGATION CREW LEADER 3026 IBT
IRRIGATION TECHNICIAN 3027 IBT
HVAC CREW LEADER 3024 IBT
HVAC TECHNICIAN 3025 IBT
LEAD WATER PROD/TREAT PLANT OP 3029 IBT
LEAD MOTOR COACH CLEANER 3083 IBT
LEAD TRANSIT MECHANIC 3082 IBT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5% (5244 : IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 136 1 18.55 3,216.00 38,592.00 1,484.31
136 2 19.47 3,375.00 40,500.00 1,557.69
136 3 20.61 3,573.00 42,876.00 1,649.08
136 4 21.76 3,772.00 45,264.00 1,740.92
136 5 22.90 3,970.00 47,640.00 1,832.31
595 1 30.91 5,357.00 64,284.00 2,472.46
595 2 32.43 5,622.00 67,464.00 2,594.77
595 3 34.34 5,953.00 71,436.00 2,747.54
595 4 36.25 6,283.00 75,396.00 2,899.85
595 5 38.16 6,614.00 79,368.00 3,052.62
135 1 23.10 4,004.00 48,048.00 1,848.00
135 2 24.24 4,202.00 50,424.00 1,939.38
135 3 25.67 4,449.00 53,388.00 2,053.38
135 4 27.09 4,696.00 56,352.00 2,167.38
135 5 28.52 4,943.00 59,316.00 2,281.38
135 1 23.10 4,004.00 48,048.00 1,848.00
135 2 24.24 4,202.00 50,424.00 1,939.38
135 3 25.67 4,449.00 53,388.00 2,053.38
135 4 27.09 4,696.00 56,352.00 2,167.38
135 5 28.52 4,943.00 59,316.00 2,281.38
540 1 30.13 5,222.00 62,664.00 2,410.15
540 2 31.62 5,480.00 65,760.00 2,529.23
540 3 33.47 5,802.00 69,624.00 2,677.85
540 4 35.34 6,125.00 73,500.00 2,826.92
540 5 37.19 6,447.00 77,364.00 2,975.54
540 1 30.13 5,222.00 62,664.00 2,410.15
540 2 31.62 5,480.00 65,760.00 2,529.23
540 3 33.47 5,802.00 69,624.00 2,677.85
540 4 35.34 6,125.00 73,500.00 2,826.92
540 5 37.19 6,447.00 77,364.00 2,975.54
755 1 33.47 5,801.00 69,612.00 2,677.38
755 2 35.12 6,088.00 73,056.00 2,809.85
755 3 37.19 6,446.00 77,352.00 2,975.08
755 4 39.25 6,804.00 81,648.00 3,140.31
755 5 41.32 7,162.00 85,944.00 3,305.54
125 1 22.86 3,963.00 47,556.00 1,829.08
125 2 23.99 4,159.00 49,908.00 1,919.54
125 3 25.41 4,404.00 52,848.00 2,032.62
125 4 26.82 4,648.00 55,776.00 2,145.23
125 5 28.23 4,893.00 58,716.00 2,258.31
125 1 22.86 3,963.00 47,556.00 1,829.08
125 2 23.99 4,159.00 49,908.00 1,919.54
125 3 25.41 4,404.00 52,848.00 2,032.62
125 4 26.82 4,648.00 55,776.00 2,145.23
125 5 28.23 4,893.00 58,716.00 2,258.31
585 1 30.82 5,342.00 64,104.00 2,465.54
585 2 32.34 5,606.00 67,272.00 2,587.38
585 3 34.25 5,936.00 71,232.00 2,739.69
585 4 36.14 6,265.00 75,180.00 2,891.54
585 5 38.05 6,595.00 79,140.00 3,043.85
MAINTENANCE ASSISTANT 3030 IBT
MECHANIC I 3033 IBT
9067 IBT
MECHANIC II 3034 IBT
MAINTENANCE CREW LEADER 3031 IBT
MAINTENANCE WORKER 3032 IBT
9070 IBT
MOTOR COACH CLEANER 3035 IBT
9107 IBT
MOTOR SWEEPER OPERATOR 3036 IBT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5% (5244 : IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 485 1 29.45 5,104.00 61,248.00 2,355.69
485 2 30.90 5,356.00 64,272.00 2,472.00
485 3 32.72 5,671.00 68,052.00 2,617.38
485 4 34.53 5,986.00 71,832.00 2,762.77
485 5 36.35 6,301.00 75,612.00 2,908.15
485 1 29.45 5,104.00 61,248.00 2,355.69
485 2 30.90 5,356.00 64,272.00 2,472.00
485 3 32.72 5,671.00 68,052.00 2,617.38
485 4 34.53 5,986.00 71,832.00 2,762.77
485 5 36.35 6,301.00 75,612.00 2,908.15
695 1 32.39 5,614.00 67,368.00 2,591.08
695 2 33.99 5,891.00 70,692.00 2,718.92
695 3 35.99 6,238.00 74,856.00 2,879.08
695 4 37.98 6,584.00 79,008.00 3,038.77
695 5 39.99 6,931.00 83,172.00 3,198.92
596 1 30.91 5,357.00 64,284.00 2,472.46
596 2 32.43 5,621.00 67,452.00 2,594.31
596 3 34.34 5,952.00 71,424.00 2,747.08
596 4 36.24 6,282.00 75,384.00 2,899.38
596 5 38.15 6,613.00 79,356.00 3,052.15
400 1 28.06 4,864.00 58,368.00 2,244.92
400 2 29.45 5,104.00 61,248.00 2,355.69
400 3 31.18 5,405.00 64,860.00 2,494.62
400 4 32.91 5,705.00 68,460.00 2,633.08
400 5 34.64 6,005.00 72,060.00 2,771.54
475 1 29.38 5,092.00 61,104.00 2,350.15
475 2 30.83 5,343.00 64,116.00 2,466.00
475 3 32.64 5,657.00 67,884.00 2,610.92
475 4 34.45 5,972.00 71,664.00 2,756.31
475 5 36.27 6,286.00 75,432.00 2,901.23
595 1 30.91 5,357.00 64,284.00 2,472.46
595 2 32.43 5,622.00 67,464.00 2,594.77
595 3 34.34 5,953.00 71,436.00 2,747.54
595 4 36.25 6,283.00 75,396.00 2,899.85
595 5 38.16 6,614.00 79,368.00 3,052.62
790 1 34.06 5,903.00 70,836.00 2,724.46
790 2 35.74 6,195.00 74,340.00 2,859.23
790 3 37.84 6,559.00 78,708.00 3,027.23
790 4 39.95 6,924.00 83,088.00 3,195.69
790 5 42.05 7,288.00 87,456.00 3,363.69
250 1 25.35 4,394.00 52,728.00 2,028.00
250 2 26.60 4,611.00 55,332.00 2,128.15
250 3 28.17 4,883.00 58,596.00 2,253.69
250 4 29.73 5,154.00 61,848.00 2,378.77
250 5 31.30 5,425.00 65,100.00 2,503.85
515 1 29.77 5,160.00 61,920.00 2,381.54
515 2 31.24 5,415.00 64,980.00 2,499.23
515 3 33.08 5,733.00 68,796.00 2,646.00
515 4 34.92 6,052.00 72,624.00 2,793.23
515 5 36.75 6,370.00 76,440.00 2,940.00
PAINTER 3037 IBT
9108 IBT
PAINTER CREW LEADER 3038 IBT
PARKS EQUIPMENT TECHNICIAN 3040 IBT
PARKS MAINTENANCE CREW LEADER 3041 IBT
PARKING METER CREW LEADER 3084 IBT
PARKING METER TECHNICIAN 3039 IBT
PIPE FITTER 3044 IBT
PIER MAINTENANCE CREW LEADER 3042 IBT
PIER MAINTENANCE WORKER 3043 IBT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5% (5244 : IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 625 1 31.25 5,416.00 64,992.00 2,499.69
625 2 32.79 5,683.00 68,196.00 2,622.92
625 3 34.71 6,017.00 72,204.00 2,777.08
625 4 36.65 6,352.00 76,224.00 2,931.69
625 5 38.57 6,686.00 80,232.00 3,085.85
815 1 38.64 6,697.00 80,364.00 3,090.92
815 2 40.55 7,028.00 84,336.00 3,243.69
815 3 42.93 7,441.00 89,292.00 3,434.31
815 4 45.32 7,855.00 94,260.00 3,625.38
815 5 47.70 8,268.00 99,216.00 3,816.00
775 1 33.90 5,876.00 70,512.00 2,712.00
775 2 35.57 6,166.00 73,992.00 2,845.85
775 3 37.67 6,529.00 78,348.00 3,013.38
775 4 39.76 6,891.00 82,692.00 3,180.46
775 5 41.85 7,254.00 87,048.00 3,348.00
305 1 26.47 4,588.00 55,056.00 2,117.54
305 2 27.77 4,814.00 57,768.00 2,221.85
305 3 29.41 5,098.00 61,176.00 2,352.92
305 4 31.04 5,381.00 64,572.00 2,483.54
305 5 32.68 5,664.00 67,968.00 2,614.15
305 1 26.47 4,588.00 55,056.00 2,117.54
305 2 27.77 4,814.00 57,768.00 2,221.85
305 3 29.41 5,098.00 61,176.00 2,352.92
305 4 31.04 5,381.00 64,572.00 2,483.54
305 5 32.68 5,664.00 67,968.00 2,614.15
877 1 35.79 6,203.00 74,436.00 2,862.92
877 2 37.55 6,509.00 78,108.00 3,004.15
877 3 39.76 6,892.00 82,704.00 3,180.92
877 4 41.97 7,275.00 87,300.00 3,357.69
877 5 44.18 7,658.00 91,896.00 3,534.46
200 1 24.57 4,259.00 51,108.00 1,965.69
200 2 25.78 4,469.00 53,628.00 2,062.62
200 3 27.30 4,732.00 56,784.00 2,184.00
200 4 28.82 4,995.00 59,940.00 2,305.38
200 5 30.33 5,258.00 63,096.00 2,426.77
315 1 26.57 4,606.00 55,272.00 2,125.85
315 2 27.89 4,834.00 58,008.00 2,231.08
315 3 29.53 5,118.00 61,416.00 2,362.15
315 4 31.17 5,403.00 64,836.00 2,493.69
315 5 32.81 5,687.00 68,244.00 2,624.77
876 1 36.01 6,241.00 74,892.00 2,880.46
876 2 37.78 6,549.00 78,588.00 3,022.62
876 3 40.01 6,935.00 83,220.00 3,200.77
876 4 42.23 7,320.00 87,840.00 3,378.46
876 5 44.45 7,705.00 92,460.00 3,556.15
336 1 30.27 5,247.00 62,964.00 2,421.69
336 2 31.77 5,506.00 66,072.00 2,541.23
336 3 33.63 5,830.00 69,960.00 2,690.77
336 4 35.50 6,154.00 73,848.00 2,840.31
336 5 37.37 6,478.00 77,736.00 2,989.85
PLUMBER 3045 IBT
RESOURCE REC & RECYC EQUIP OP 3048 IBT
9057 IBT
RESOURCE REC & RECYC SAFE TRA 3049 IBT
PLUMBER CREW LEADER 3046 IBT
RESOURCE REC & RECYC CRW LDR 3047 IBT
SR MECHANIC 3052 IBT
SR TRANSIT MAINTENANCE WORKER 3053 IBT
SEWER MAINTENANCE WORKER I 3050 IBT
SEWER MAINTENANCE WORKER II 3051 IBT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5% (5244 : IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 953 1 43.73 7,579.00 90,948.00 3,498.00
953 2 45.88 7,953.00 95,436.00 3,670.62
953 3 48.58 8,421.00 101,052.00 3,886.62
953 4 51.28 8,889.00 106,668.00 4,102.62
953 5 53.98 9,357.00 112,284.00 4,318.62
245 1 25.25 4,376.00 52,512.00 2,019.69
245 2 26.50 4,593.00 55,116.00 2,119.85
245 3 28.06 4,863.00 58,356.00 2,244.46
245 4 29.61 5,133.00 61,596.00 2,369.08
245 5 31.17 5,403.00 64,836.00 2,493.69
345 1 27.13 4,703.00 56,436.00 2,170.62
345 2 28.47 4,935.00 59,220.00 2,277.69
345 3 30.14 5,225.00 62,700.00 2,411.54
345 4 31.82 5,516.00 66,192.00 2,545.85
345 5 33.50 5,806.00 69,672.00 2,679.69
790 1 34.06 5,903.00 70,836.00 2,724.46
790 2 35.74 6,195.00 74,340.00 2,859.23
790 3 37.84 6,559.00 78,708.00 3,027.23
790 4 39.95 6,924.00 83,088.00 3,195.69
790 5 42.05 7,288.00 87,456.00 3,363.69
250 1 25.35 4,394.00 52,728.00 2,028.00
250 2 26.60 4,611.00 55,332.00 2,128.15
250 3 28.17 4,883.00 58,596.00 2,253.69
250 4 29.73 5,154.00 61,848.00 2,378.77
250 5 31.30 5,425.00 65,100.00 2,503.85
250 1 25.35 4,394.00 52,728.00 2,028.00
250 2 26.60 4,611.00 55,332.00 2,128.15
250 3 28.17 4,883.00 58,596.00 2,253.69
250 4 29.73 5,154.00 61,848.00 2,378.77
250 5 31.30 5,425.00 65,100.00 2,503.85
435 1 28.75 4,983.00 59,796.00 2,299.85
435 2 30.17 5,229.00 62,748.00 2,413.38
435 3 31.94 5,537.00 66,444.00 2,555.54
435 4 33.72 5,844.00 70,128.00 2,697.23
435 5 35.49 6,152.00 73,824.00 2,839.38
3059 IBT 004 1 17.38 3,012.00 36,144.00 1,390.15
9129 IBT 004 1 17.38 3,012.00 36,144.00 1,390.15
380 1 27.63 4,789.00 57,468.00 2,210.31
380 2 28.99 5,025.00 60,300.00 2,319.23
380 3 30.70 5,321.00 63,852.00 2,455.85
380 4 32.40 5,616.00 67,392.00 2,592.00
380 5 34.11 5,912.00 70,944.00 2,728.62
380 1 27.63 4,789.00 57,468.00 2,210.31
380 2 28.99 5,025.00 60,300.00 2,319.23
380 3 30.70 5,321.00 63,852.00 2,455.85
380 4 32.40 5,616.00 67,392.00 2,592.00
380 5 34.11 5,912.00 70,944.00 2,728.62
790 1 34.06 5,903.00 70,836.00 2,724.46
790 2 35.74 6,195.00 74,340.00 2,859.23
790 3 37.84 6,559.00 78,708.00 3,027.23
790 4 39.95 6,924.00 83,088.00 3,195.69
790 5 42.05 7,288.00 87,456.00 3,363.69
235 1 25.22 4,371.00 52,452.00 2,017.38
235 2 26.46 4,587.00 55,044.00 2,117.08
235 3 28.02 4,856.00 58,272.00 2,241.23
STOREKEEPER II 3055 IBT
STREET SERVICES CREW LEADER 3056 IBT
SR WATER PROD & TREAT PLANT OP 3087 IBT
STOREKEEPER 3054 IBT

TRADES INTERN
TRAFFIC PAINTER 3060 IBT
9174 IBT
STREET SERVICES WORKER I 3057 IBT
9105 IBT
STREET SERVICES WORKER II 3058 IBT
TRAFFIC PAINTER CREW LEADER 3061 IBT
TRANSIT MAINTENANCE WORKER 3062 IBT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5% (5244 : IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 235 4 29.57 5,126.00 61,512.00 2,365.85
235 5 31.13 5,396.00 64,752.00 2,490.46
235 1 25.22 4,371.00 52,452.00 2,017.38
235 2 26.46 4,587.00 55,044.00 2,117.08
235 3 28.02 4,856.00 58,272.00 2,241.23
235 4 29.57 5,126.00 61,512.00 2,365.85
235 5 31.13 5,396.00 64,752.00 2,490.46
540 1 30.13 5,222.00 62,664.00 2,410.15
540 2 31.62 5,480.00 65,760.00 2,529.23
540 3 33.47 5,802.00 69,624.00 2,677.85
540 4 35.34 6,125.00 73,500.00 2,826.92
540 5 37.19 6,447.00 77,364.00 2,975.54
540 1 30.13 5,222.00 62,664.00 2,410.15
540 2 31.62 5,480.00 65,760.00 2,529.23
540 3 33.47 5,802.00 69,624.00 2,677.85
540 4 35.34 6,125.00 73,500.00 2,826.92
540 5 37.19 6,447.00 77,364.00 2,975.54
755 1 33.47 5,801.00 69,612.00 2,677.38
755 2 35.12 6,088.00 73,056.00 2,809.85
755 3 37.19 6,446.00 77,352.00 2,975.08
755 4 39.25 6,804.00 81,648.00 3,140.31
755 5 41.32 7,162.00 85,944.00 3,305.54
330 1 26.92 4,666.00 55,992.00 2,153.54
330 2 28.25 4,897.00 58,764.00 2,260.15
330 3 29.91 5,185.00 62,220.00 2,393.08
330 4 31.58 5,473.00 65,676.00 2,526.00
330 5 33.24 5,761.00 69,132.00 2,658.92
635 1 31.37 5,438.00 65,256.00 2,509.85
635 2 32.92 5,706.00 68,472.00 2,633.54
635 3 34.86 6,042.00 72,504.00 2,788.62
635 4 36.79 6,377.00 76,524.00 2,943.23
635 5 38.73 6,713.00 80,556.00 3,098.31
954 1 44.11 7,645.00 91,740.00 3,528.46
954 2 46.28 8,022.00 96,264.00 3,702.46
954 3 49.00 8,494.00 101,928.00 3,920.31
954 4 51.73 8,966.00 107,592.00 4,138.15
954 5 54.45 9,438.00 113,256.00 4,356.00
155 1 23.58 4,087.00 49,044.00 1,886.31
155 2 24.74 4,289.00 51,468.00 1,979.54
155 3 26.20 4,541.00 54,492.00 2,095.85
155 4 27.66 4,794.00 57,528.00 2,212.62
155 5 29.11 5,046.00 60,552.00 2,328.92
155 1 23.58 4,087.00 49,044.00 1,886.31
155 2 24.74 4,289.00 51,468.00 1,979.54
155 3 26.20 4,541.00 54,492.00 2,095.85
155 4 27.66 4,794.00 57,528.00 2,212.62
155 5 29.11 5,046.00 60,552.00 2,328.92
TRANSIT MECHANIC I 3063 IBT
9106 IBT
TRANSIT MECHANIC II 3064 IBT
9065 IBT
UNDERGROUND UTILITY SAFETY CRD 3067 IBT
WAREHOUSE WORKER 3068 IBT
9155 IBT
TREE TRIMMER 3065 IBT
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATOR 3066 IBT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5% (5244 : IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 486 1 29.04 5,033.00 60,396.00 2,322.92
486 2 30.47 5,282.00 63,384.00 2,437.85
486 3 32.27 5,593.00 67,116.00 2,581.38
486 4 34.06 5,903.00 70,836.00 2,724.46
486 5 35.85 6,214.00 74,568.00 2,868.00
754 1 31.94 5,536.00 66,432.00 2,555.08
754 2 33.52 5,810.00 69,720.00 2,681.54
754 3 35.49 6,152.00 73,824.00 2,839.38
754 4 37.46 6,493.00 77,916.00 2,996.77
754 5 39.43 6,835.00 82,020.00 3,154.62
816 1 38.65 6,699.00 80,388.00 3,091.85
816 2 40.56 7,030.00 84,360.00 3,244.62
816 3 42.94 7,443.00 89,316.00 3,435.23
816 4 45.33 7,857.00 94,284.00 3,626.31
816 5 47.71 8,270.00 99,240.00 3,816.92
876 1 36.01 6,241.00 74,892.00 2,880.46
876 2 37.78 6,549.00 78,588.00 3,022.62
876 3 40.01 6,935.00 83,220.00 3,200.77
876 4 42.23 7,320.00 87,840.00 3,378.46
876 5 44.45 7,705.00 92,460.00 3,556.15
805 1 34.29 5,943.00 71,316.00 2,742.92
805 2 35.98 6,236.00 74,832.00 2,878.15
805 3 38.09 6,603.00 79,236.00 3,047.54
805 4 40.21 6,970.00 83,640.00 3,216.92
805 5 42.33 7,337.00 88,044.00 3,386.31
952 1 42.14 7,305.00 87,660.00 3,371.54
952 2 44.23 7,666.00 91,992.00 3,538.15
952 3 46.83 8,117.00 97,404.00 3,746.31
952 4 49.43 8,568.00 102,816.00 3,954.46
952 5 52.03 9,019.00 108,228.00 4,162.62
333 1 26.95 4,672.00 56,064.00 2,156.31
333 2 28.29 4,903.00 58,836.00 2,262.92
333 3 29.95 5,191.00 62,292.00 2,395.85
333 4 31.62 5,480.00 65,760.00 2,529.23
333 5 33.28 5,768.00 69,216.00 2,662.15
501 1 29.65 5,139.00 61,668.00 2,371.85
501 2 31.11 5,393.00 64,716.00 2,489.08
501 3 32.95 5,711.00 68,532.00 2,635.85
501 4 34.78 6,028.00 72,336.00 2,782.15
501 5 36.61 6,345.00 76,140.00 2,928.46
875 1 36.14 6,264.00 75,168.00 2,891.08
875 2 37.92 6,573.00 78,876.00 3,033.69
875 3 40.15 6,960.00 83,520.00 3,212.31
875 4 42.38 7,346.00 88,152.00 3,390.46
875 5 44.61 7,733.00 92,796.00 3,569.08
951 1 39.75 6,890.00 82,680.00 3,180.00
951 2 41.71 7,230.00 86,760.00 3,336.92
951 3 44.16 7,655.00 91,860.00 3,533.08
951 4 46.62 8,081.00 96,972.00 3,729.69
951 5 49.07 8,506.00 102,072.00 3,925.85
WASTEWATER CREW LEADER 3069 IBT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPR 3070 IBT
WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS WRK I 3088 IBT
WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS WRK II 3089 IBT
WATER MAINTENANCE WORKER I 3073 IBT
WATER MAINTENANCE WORKER II 3090 IBT
WATER CONSTRUCTION CREW LEADER 3071 IBT
WATER CREW LEADER 3072 IBT
WATER PROD & TREAT PLANT OP I 3074 IBT
WATER PROD & TREAT PLANT OP II 3091 IBT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5% (5244 : IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 790 1 34.06 5,903.00 70,836.00 2,724.46
790 2 35.74 6,195.00 74,340.00 2,859.23
790 3 37.84 6,559.00 78,708.00 3,027.23
790 4 39.95 6,924.00 83,088.00 3,195.69
790 5 42.05 7,288.00 87,456.00 3,363.69
370 1 29.21 5,063.00 60,756.00 2,336.77
370 2 30.65 5,313.00 63,756.00 2,452.15
370 3 32.45 5,625.00 67,500.00 2,596.15
370 4 34.26 5,938.00 71,256.00 2,740.62
370 5 36.06 6,250.00 75,000.00 2,884.62
370 1 29.21 5,063.00 60,756.00 2,336.77
370 2 30.65 5,313.00 63,756.00 2,452.15
370 3 32.45 5,625.00 67,500.00 2,596.15
370 4 34.26 5,938.00 71,256.00 2,740.62
370 5 36.06 6,250.00 75,000.00 2,884.62
650 1 31.60 5,477.00 65,724.00 2,527.85
650 2 33.16 5,748.00 68,976.00 2,652.92
650 3 35.11 6,086.00 73,032.00 2,808.92
650 4 37.06 6,424.00 77,088.00 2,964.92
650 5 39.01 6,762.00 81,144.00 3,120.92
878 1 34.83 6,038.00 72,456.00 2,786.77
878 2 36.55 6,336.00 76,032.00 2,924.31
878 3 38.71 6,709.00 80,508.00 3,096.46
878 4 40.85 7,081.00 84,972.00 3,268.15
878 5 43.00 7,454.00 89,448.00 3,440.31
814 1 38.31 6,641.00 79,692.00 3,065.08
814 2 40.21 6,969.00 83,628.00 3,216.46
814 3 42.57 7,379.00 88,548.00 3,405.69
814 4 44.94 7,789.00 93,468.00 3,594.92
814 5 47.30 8,199.00 98,388.00 3,784.15
555 1 30.35 5,260.00 63,120.00 2,427.69
555 2 31.85 5,520.00 66,240.00 2,547.69
555 3 33.72 5,845.00 70,140.00 2,697.69
555 4 35.59 6,169.00 74,028.00 2,847.23
555 5 37.47 6,494.00 77,928.00 2,997.23
WATER RESOURCES CREW LEADER 3075 IBT
WATER RESOURCES TECHNICIAN 3076 IBT
9136 IBT
WATER UTILITY WORKER II 3093 IBT
WELDER FABRICATOR 3078 IBT
WATER SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT OPER 3077 IBT
WATER UTILITY WORKER I 3092 IBT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: COLA FY22-23 Step IBT Salary Grades 4.5% (5244 : IBT) 1 City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING THE

TENTATIVE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911
WHEREAS, authorized representatives of the City administration and the California Teamsters Local 911 (Teamsters) have met and conferred in accordance with the Meyers-Millias Brown Act (“MMBA”), codified at Government Code Section 3500 et seq., and have reached agreement on wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 3505.1, on July 26, 2022, the tentative agreement reached between authorized representatives of the City administration and Teamsters was presented to the City Council of the City of Santa Monica for consideration; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 3505.1 requires preparation of a written Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the employee organization if a tentative agreement is reached and adopted by the City Council; and

5.F.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Teamsters TA RESO 7.26.22 [Revision 1] (5244 : IBT) 2 WHEREAS, the purpose of each Memorandum of Understanding is to promote and provide harmonious relations, cooperation, and understanding between the City and Teamsters.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica hereby accepts and approves the tentative agreement that has been reached between authorized representatives of the City administration and the California Teamsters Local 911 (Teamsters) and authorizes the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Teamsters (FY2022-2025), in accordance with this agreement.

SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

5.F.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Teamsters TA RESO 7.26.22 [Revision 1] (5244 : IBT) 1 June 14, 2022
re(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2022
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 5:33 p.m., on Tuesday, June 14, 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 Doug Sloan
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. Mayor Pro Tem McCowan led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

CLOSED SESSIONS 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 6:51 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): Westin Rowland v. City of Santa Monica, U.S.

District Court Case No. 2:21-CV-05051-CAS (AFM).

The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

1.B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Jerrid Powell v. City of Santa Monica, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 20STCV15438.

5.G
Packet Pg. 111 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 June 14, 2022
This item was pulled and was not heard.

1.C. Conference with Labor Negotiator: Government Code Section 54957.6 -- Agency Designated Representatives: City Manager David White and Chief People Officer Lori Gentles; Bargaining Units: ATAAdministrative Team Associates; IBT-California Teamsters Local 911; FEMA-Santa Monica Fire Executive Management Association; FIRESanta Monica Firefighters Local 1109 IAFF; MEA-Municipal Employees Association; AFSCME Local 4819, Management Team Association; PALSSU-Public Attorneys’ Legal Support Staff Union; PAU- Public Attorneys Union; POA-Santa Monica Police Officer Association; SMART TD-The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Division, Local 1785; STASupervisory Team Associates; Coalition of Santa Monica City Employees.

The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
On the order of the Mayor, it was announced that Item 13.F. was being pulled by the requesting Councilmembers.

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS:

2.A. Proclamation: Juneteenth, was presented.

Member of the public Ericka Lesley spoke in support of this item.

2.B. City Manager Report, was presented.

Member of the public Denise Barton spoke on this item.

REPORT ON COUNCIL
TRAVEL
There was nothing to report on Council travel.

CONSENT CALENDAR: All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

There were no members of the public present for public comment on various Consent Calendar items.

At the request of Councilmember Parra, Item 3.A was removed from the Consent Calendar.

At the request of Councilmember Brock, Items 3.B and 3.E. were removed from the Consent Calendar.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to

5.G
Packet Pg. 112 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 June 14, 2022
approve the Consent Calendar except for Items 3.A., 3.B., and 3.E. reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. 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

ANNUAL WASTEWATER

MAIN REPLACEMENT

PROJECT ANNUAL

WATER MAIN

REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

3.C. Award Construction and Construction Management Contracts for Annual Wastewater Main Replacement Project Annual Water Main Replacement Project, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award Bid #SP2638 to Steve Bubalo Construction Company to provide construction services for the FY 2020/21 Annual Wastewater Main Improvements Citywide Project (Project) for the Public Works Department;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No. 11270 (CCS) with Steve Bubalo Construction Company in an amount not to exceed $4,103,895 (including a $535,290
contingency);

3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders with Steve Bubalo Construction Company to complete additional work within contract authority;

4. Award RFP #SP2638 to Berg and Associates Inc. for construction management services for the Project;

5. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No. 11271 (CCS) with Berg and Associates Inc. to provide construction management services for the Project in an amount not to exceed $230,000.

OLYMPIC

RESTORATION AND

ARCADIA EXPANSION

PROJECT

3.D. Adoption of Resolution No. 11423 (CCS) entitled “A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ADOPTING THE SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE OLYMPIC WELL

FIELD RESTORATION AND ARCADIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION PROJECT”, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached resolution to approve the second addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project to relocate groundwater recharge well SM-11i to the City Yards, add a potential second groundwater recharge well at

5.G
Packet Pg. 113 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 June 14, 2022
the City Yards, and replace the existing fence at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant.

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Professional Services Agreement #10873 in the amount of $276,301 with GHD Inc. to provide additional owner’s engineer services and construction support services for the Public Works Department. This would result in a five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $1,527,401, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

BUILDING

OPTIMIZATION

SERVICES

3.F. Approval of Sixth Modification to Agreement 10667(CCS) with Siemen's for the Smart Building Commissioning (SBCx) of the Building Automation System (BAS), was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a sixth modification to agreement #10667(CCS) in the amount of $290,000 (includes a 10% contingency) with Siemens Industry Inc. (Siemens) to perform building optimization services for the Public Safety Facility (PSF), City Hall, and Main Library. This would result in a five-year contract with a new total amount not to exceed $1,505,847.

EMPLOYEE SUPPORT

SERVICES

3.G. Approval of Third Modification to Agreement with BetterUp, Inc. for Care Program Support Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a third modification to agreement #11048 in the amount of $154,000 with BetterUp, Inc., to provide employee support services for one year, through June 30, 2023. This will result in a threeyear amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $446,500.

This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250 (a) with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

SANTA MONICA

TOURISM MARKETING

DISTRICT BUDGET

3.H. Approval of Santa Monica Travel and Tourism Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget and Work Plan, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Santa Monica Tourism Marketing District Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget and Work Plan.

SANTA MONICA PIER

CORPORATION BUDGET

3.I. Approval of Pier Corporation Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget and Work Plan, was approved.

5.G
Packet Pg. 114 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 June 14, 2022
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget and Work Plan;

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a third modification to agreement #10101 with the Santa Monica Pier Corporation to extend the term through June 30, 2023;

3. Authorize the one-day reduction of Carousel Ticket Fare Rate to 5 Cents on September 15, 2022, in conjunction with the Santa Monica Pier Carousel Centennial Celebration.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT

SOFTWARE

3.J. Approval of Fourth Contract Modification with
Carahsoft/Granicus for Electronic Agenda Management Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a fourth modification to Agreement 9784 (CCS) in the amount of $23,190 with Carahsoft/Granicus for an agenda management software system for the Records and Election Services Department. This will result in a 1 year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $188,614, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

TELECONFERENCE

MEETINGS

3.K. Adoption of Resolution No. 11424 (CCS) entitled “A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY AB 361

TO PERMIT COUNCIL AND CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, AND TASK

FORCE MEETINGS TO CONTINUE TO BE CONDUCTED BY
TELECONFERENCE WHILE THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY REMAINS IN
PLACE”, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution making the findings required by AB 361 to continue teleconference meetings of the City Council and City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces through July 14, 2022.

DATA RETENTION

SERVICES

3.L. Approval of Second Modification to Agreement No. 11272 (CCS) with AdaptivEdge, LLC for data retention and classification label services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to reinstate, negotiate and execute a second modification to agreement #3617 in the amount of $70,000 with AdaptivEdge, LLC for data retention and classification label services for the Information Services Department. This

5.G
Packet Pg. 115 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 June 14, 2022
will result in a four-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $148,355 with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

HOUSING ELEMENT

FINANCIAL ANALYSES

3.M. Approval of Second Modification to Professional Services Agreement with HR&A for 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to agreement #10830 in the amount of $89,000 and extend the term for one additional year, with HR&A Advisors Inc to Provide Additional Financial Analyses in Support of the City’s Housing Element. This will result in a four-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $418,900, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

MINUTES 3.N. Minutes for the City Council - Regular Meeting - May 10, 2022 5:30 PM, were approved.

MINUTES 3.O. Approve Minutes for the City Council - Special Meeting - May 11, 2022 6:00 PM, were approved.

CITY YARDS EIR 3.A. Approval of City Yards EIR Addendum, Hathaway Dinwiddie Change Order, and SCD License Agreement and Contract
Modification, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Review, approve, and adopt the addendum changes to the City Yards Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
2017111053), which analyzes environmental impacts of
modifications to the City Yards Master Plan;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a license agreement and contract modification to Contract #9011 (CCS) with Southern California Disposal, to revise terms and conditions that will result in four years of recyclable materials transfer services through 2026;

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) fifth modification to Design-Build
Contract #10371 (CCS) in the amount of
$1,750,000 with Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company for design and construction services of the Resource Recovery and Recycling Transfer Facility Relocation as part of the City Yards Modernization – Package A Project for the Public Works
Department. This would result in a five-year amended agreement

5.G
Packet Pg. 116 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 June 14, 2022
with a new total amount not to exceed $87,273,039; and

4. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work within contract authority.

This item was pulled by Councilmember Parra to request a staff report and asked questions of staff including: were there any consideration of the impact of the noise; why is this being expanded; how is the odor impacting the neighbors; with the completion being done in approximately 8 weeks, what is the plan for the trees, what kind of trees are being planted; is there anything additional besides the sound wall to mitigate the noise and disturbances for neighbors; is that wall the maximum, the best option for that site; if this doesn’t work as well as expected, is Public Works prepared to go back an make the necessary enhancements; can this wall model be modified to be improve, if necessary; what is being done to prepare for rainy days to keep the trash from getting wet; is there a screen that can be put up to catch some of the dust; and is there any thought about installing the cones instead of trees to mitigate the dust problem.

Motion by Councilmember Parra, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to approve the recommended action. 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

ANNUAL WATER MAIN

REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

3.B. Award Construction and Construction Management Contracts for Annual Water Main Replacement Project, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff Recommends that the City Council:

1. Award Bid #2640 to Colich and Sons, LP, to provide construction services for the FY 2020/21 Annual Water Main Replacement Project for the Public Works Department;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No. 11273 (CCS) with Colich and Sons, LP, in an amount not to exceed $6,530,160 (including a $851,760 contingency);

3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders with Colich and Sons, LP. to complete additional work within contract authority;

4. Award Request for Proposal (RFP) #2640 to Willdan Engineering for construction management services for the FY 2020/21 Annual Water Main Replacement Project;

5. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No.

5.G
Packet Pg. 117 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 June 14, 2022
11274 (CCS) with Willdan Engineering in an amount not to exceed $396,750.

This item was pulled by Councilmember Brock to ask questions of staff.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: looking back at the Capital budget for FY 2021, are we getting good value, did something go awry, are we still aligned with the original appropriation for FY21/22; and, in doing these contracts for these three items, is there a way to make sure that comparison is apparent and transparent for why and where the cost increase occur.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Parra, to approve the recommended action. The motion as approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

PARKING STRUCTURE

SECURITY SERVICES

3.E. Approval of Contract Modification with Universal Protection Services, LP dba Allied Universal Security Services for Parking Structure Security Services, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a change order to purchase order #22101027 in the amount of $96,332 with Universal Protection Service, LP dba Allied Universal Security Services to provide parking structure security services for the Department of Transportation. This recommendation is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250(g) and would result in a revised purchase order total not to exceed $339,132 with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and

2. Approve a cumulative total for Universal Protection Service, LP not to exceed $517,165 from December 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022.

This item was pulled by Councilmember Brock to ask questions of staff.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: overnight security to the seven parking structures downtown; how many security guards are there on duty; do they have a direct line to Police dispatch, if they need it; is there any data showing how many people they encounter in the garages on a

5.G
Packet Pg. 118 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 June 14, 2022
nightly basis, and how effective are they; how many encounters do they have, what are the problems they have, and are there enough security; what type of issues are they having; didn’t we remove Allied at one point; and, are they effective.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to approve the recommended action. 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
AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
The Mayor proposed Agenda Management to continue Item 13.A. to the June 28th Council meeting. The continuance was unanimously approved by voice vote.

ADMIN. PROCEEDINGS:
1665 APPIAN WAY

6.A. Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Designate 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve Appeal 21ENT-0253, appeal of the Landmarks
Commission’s decision to designate the property located at 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark; and

2. Deny Designation Application 21ENT-0067 to designate the property located at 1665 Appian Way as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.

3. If the City Council disapproves the appeal and approves the designation application to designate the property as either a City Landmark or Structure of Merit, as described in Alternative Actions, adopt the alternative findings under “California Environmental Quality Act Compliance”.

Ex-parti Communications
Councilmember Davis, at 1p.m. yesterday, had a conversation with Nina Fresco regarding the property, and walked the property several times.

Councilmember Negrete, after 5pm on Sunday, had a talk with Ralph Mechur about the racial issues related to this property and walks regularly by the property.

Mayor Himmelrich talked to Mr. Mechur, walked by the property several times, talked to Ericka Lesley and Robbie Jones regarding the history of the

5.G
Packet Pg. 119 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 10 June 14, 2022
property.

Councilmember Brock, met with Frank Angel on April 22nd concerning this project.

Councilmember Parra spoke with Nina Fresco on Saturday, talked to Ralph Mechur briefly at Casa Martin, talked to Frank Angel on April 22nd, and took a drive around the property this morning.

Members of the public Ericka Lesley, Mary Melvin, Nina Fresco, Frank Angel (time donated by Eugene Alger), Tova Kitron, Roger Genser, Robbie Jones, Joanne Berlin, Dolores Sloan, and, Ruthann Lehrer spoke to the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: what type of project would be able to be built on the property; define the terms vernacular and purpose build; when was this building designated, was it before or after the permit was pulled; so all of this time, nobody decided to apply for this building as a landmark until a permit was pulled; why is this coming up now, and why haven’t any of the landmark or historical groups brought this property forward previously; are there funds given to the property owner to help landmark the property; and, is anyone living in the building right now.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to: it doesn’t meet criteria one of landmarking; putting a plaque on the building only brings attention to the racist history; this is a hodgepodge of elements but not a representative architectural of the time; no other building in Santa Monica has this type of wood siding; and, this property does not rise to the level to meet criteria 1 for landmarking.

Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to grant the appeal 21ENT-0253 and deny the designation application 21ENT0253. 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 Himmelrich, to direct the Landmarks Commission to work with the Committee for Racial Justice and other groups within town, to try and come up with some criteria and framework for addressing these kinds of issues when they arise in the future, so that we will have a standardized way of dealing with these unfortunate situations. Also implied direction that would include having the Landmarks Commission appoint one or two liaisons to the Committee for

5.G
Packet Pg. 120 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 11 June 14, 2022
Racial Justice and other groups in the city as well. The vote was unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present. 631 COLORADO AVENUE 6.B. Appeal of Determination by Landmarks Commission to Designate 631 Colorado Avenue as a City Landmark, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve Appeal 22ENT-0015, appeal of the Landmarks
Commission’s decision to designate the property located at 631 Colorado Avenue as a City Landmark; and

2. Deny Designation Application 21ENT-0125 to designate the property located at 631 Colorado Avenue as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.

3. If the City Council disapproves the appeal and approves the designation application to designate the property as either a City Landmark or Structure of Merit, as described in Alternative Actions, adopt the alternative findings under “California Environmental Quality Act Compliance”.

Ex-parti Communications
Councilmember Davis, 1 pm yesterday spoke with Nina Fresco and discussed the history of this building
Councilmember Parra, spoke with Nina Fresco on Saturday, drove by the property on Sunday, had an email correspondence with Ken Kutcher about possibly visiting the property.

Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, on Friday, ran into Mr. Kutcher and spoke to him briefly, and is familiar with the property.

Mayor Himmelrich, walked around the property, but didn’t talk to anyone about the property.

Councilmember Brock, last Friday at 4:00, took a tour of the building with the Attorney and employee of the building.

Members of the public Jodi Summers, Laura Voisin, and Robbie Jones spoke to the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: even though there is no trace of Ms. Moxley living there, is this an example of how African Americans in the city were forced to move out of this area; do we know who were the owners of the Aztec Brewing Company; and, did Ms. Moxley have a garage on that property.

5.G
Packet Pg. 121 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 12 June 14, 2022
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to:
there are a considerable amount of buildings in this city that have changed over time; this building doesn’t represent any significant architectural design; criteria one is not met; doesn’t have arch deco style; doesn’t elevate to the level of being landmarked; this building has been changed so many times; this building was built as a warehouse, there doesn’t seem to be anything significant about this building; and add a plaque to Ms. Moxley.

Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to uphold the appeal 22ENT-0015 and deny designation application 21ENT-0125. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
NOES: Councilmember Parra, Mayor Himmelrich
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to give direction to staff to direct the owner of the property to work to create a suitable plaque on the west side of the building honoring Ms. Moxley and her contributions. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote by all members present.

ORDINANCES:

WATER

CONSERVATION

7.A. Introduction and Adoption of Emergency Ordinance No. 2706 (CCS) entitled “AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MODIFYING SECTION 7.16.020 OF

THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE WATER
CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS”, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Introduction and adoption of the attached emergency ordinance amending SMMC 7.16.020 on Water Conservation Requirements; and,

2. Obtain the City Council’s concurrence to implement Phase 2 Outdoor Water Restriction and limit outdoor watering to two (2) days per week.

Member of the public Johnathan Foster spoke on the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: what is the start time for gardeners to begin working; how are we going to deal with water conservation, considering we have all of this housing that needs to be built; how are the new regulations being conveyed to the gardeners and landscapers to make sure they are aware of the new policies and hours; and,

5.G
Packet Pg. 122 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 13 June 14, 2022
is there a plan to inform and notify residents about the new water restrictions.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, it’s going to take a lot of communication to the public to make them aware of the new regulations.

Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to introduce and adopt the ordinance reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. 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
AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre, to continue past 11:00 p.m. and hear all items remaining on the agenda. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.

STAFF

ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:

GENERAL MUNICIPAL

ELECTION

8.A. Adoption of Resolution Nos. 11425 (CCS) and 11426 (CCS) related to the General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt two resolutions to:

1. Call for a General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022; and

2. Request that the Municipal Election be consolidated with the Los Angeles (LA) County Statewide General Election and request services from the LA County Registrar-Recorder for the General Municipal Election.

There were no members of the public present to speak on this item.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Parra, to adopt the staff recommendation. 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

5.G
Packet Pg. 123 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 14 June 14, 2022

COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:

PUBLIC SAFETY

REFORM AND

OVERSIGHT

COMMISSION

13.A. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2024, was continued to June 28, 2022.

CANNABIS TAX 13.B. On May 10, 2022, the City Council directed the City Manager to return with a study session as soon as practicable on various items (e.g.., municipal code changes, taxes, permitting process, etc.) that are necessary to be part of any future action taken by the City Council to allow for any business or businesses involved in the sale, delivery, themed special events, and/or consumption of nonmedicinal cannabis in the City of Santa Monica. This item is a request of Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre, and Negrete asking the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare an ordinance enacting a tax on businesses engaged in the sale, distribution, delivery, and consumption of cannabis. The ordinance shall be prepared in a timely manner for the City Council to consider placing the tax on the November 8, 2022 ballot. The tax should be structured as a general tax and have no sunset date.

Implementation of certain aspects of the cannabis tax will be contingent on future actions taken by City Council resulting from the study session referenced above, was presented.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: do we have enough time to poll the community in advance; is it enough time to poll and place this on the November ballot; what is the discussion about taxes, and what will the breakdown look like; and, how would this work out if this tax wins, with no future tax coming in, and the transit occupancy tax (TOT) fails, which would be an immediate tax increase.

There were no members of public present to speak on this item.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to:
there is not enough time to fully vet this and place it on the ballot this November; we don’t have the capacity to do this right for the November 2022 election; we would be better fully thinking this through and working out the taxes before placing it on the ballot; there would need to be community education to help people understand the taxing involved; if we move forward, and place the tax on the ballot now, that would move things along quicker when the city is ready to open a cannabis location; there is no sense of urgency for this matter; if this additional tax is placed on the ballot, it could negatively impact some of the other measures that are already being placed on the ballot; and, this is an opportunity to make sure the residents are purchasing safer, regulated marijuana products.

5.G
Packet Pg. 124 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 15 June 14, 2022
Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to approve the recommendation with an amendment to say that staff should return to Council with a proposal on how to realistically place a general tax on this matter in a timely manner. The motion, as amended 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
DIVERSITY REPORT 13.C. Request of Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre and Parra that the Council direct the City Manager to annually prepare and publish a Diversity Report enabling the City Council and the residents of Santa Monica to evaluate the diversity of the City's employees, and the hiring, promotion and firing of City employees during the previous year. The contemplated report should provide at a minimum, age, race and gender. To the extent possible, the City Manager shall also evaluate the potential to include other demographic data including, but not limited to, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and national origin, was presented.

There were no members of the public present to speak on this item.

Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to adopt the recommendation. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.

CITY ATTORNEY 13.D. Request of Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre and Parra for the City Attorney to return to City Council with an ordinance amending Section 2.24.080 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code limiting the City Attorney’s ability, without City Council approval, to enter into any contract providing for payment of any legal services for new legal matters at hourly rates in excess of the following:
• $400 per hour for attorneys with at least ten years' experience engaged in the practice of law;
• $300 per hour for attorneys with less than ten years' experience engaged in the practice of law;
• $400 per hour for consultants and experts who are not attorneys and are not employees of any law firm; and
• $300 per hour for all other consultants and experts, and all investigators.

The maximum hourly rates above shall be adjusted annually to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, United States city average, as published by the United States Department of Labor.

Limited exceptions shall include specialized legal work, such as bonds,

5.G
Packet Pg. 125 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 16 June 14, 2022
tax opinions, employment law, CEQA, environmental remediation, and water rights, in which the contract counsel will incur no more than twenty hours of work on the matter, was presented.

There were no members of the public present to speak on this item.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to: fear of putting ourselves in a position to have subpar lawyers, when the more expensive attorneys are those going against cities, and it would be unfair to the residents; when you have more experienced lawyers, they complete the work faster; these rates are extremely low and unreasonable; there may be other areas we could cut cost; there are lawyers out there that specialized in certain areas that the city needs for litigation; lower rates can be renegotiated with outside counsel; if we end up with lower rate attorney’s, our risk level goes higher.

Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to give City Attorney Sloan the opportunity to look for ways to bring down our legal expenditures generally, included, but not limited to, other methods to bring down the cost of current and new outside counsel. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.

INDEPENDENT SPECIAL

COUNSEL

13.E Request of Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre and Parra that the Council direct the City Attorney to advise the City Council and provide options for consideration at the July 12, 2022 City Council meeting, including the appointment of independent special counsel, to handle litigation in which the City and one or more members of the City Council are named parties on opposite sides, so as to avoid the City Attorney being adverse to any member(s) of the City Council, was presented.

There were no members of the public present to speak on this item.

Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to allow the City Attorney to use his best judgement on a case-bycase basis, with amendments to change independent counsel to outside counsel, and remove the July 12, 2022 date. The motion, as amended was approved unanimously by vote voice, with all members present.

BEACH PARKING LOTS 13.F Request of Councilmembers de la Torre and Brock that the City Manager explore and discuss with the California Coastal Commission what is needed to offer free parking in all beach parking lots for all residents who have a street parking permit in good standing. The City Manager will return to City Council with the results of those discussions along with any financial impacts, was pulled by the

5.G
Packet Pg. 126 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 17 June 14, 2022
requestors.

TAX INITIATIVE 13.G Request of Councilmembers Negrete and Parra and Mayor Pro Tem McCowan that the City Manager prepare a report pursuant to Section 9212 of the California Elections Code on an initiative with the following title prepared by the City Attorney that is seeking to qualify and be placed on the November 8, 2022 ballot: AN INITIATIVE

MEASURE TO ESTABLISH ADDED FUNDING FOR

HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND

SCHOOLS BY AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 6.96 TO PROVIDE A THIRD TIER TRANSFER TAX
RATE FOR PROPERTY TRANSFERS OF $8,000,000 OR MORE

WITH AN ELEVEN MEMBER RESIDENT OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE The report prepared pursuant to Section 9212 of the California Elections Code shall be presented to City Council as soon as possible, but not later than July 26, 2022, was presented.

Member of the public Denise Barton, spoke on the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: what does this report due, and how much staff time is this going to take; is there a harm or benefit to this report; how much is it going to costs to create this report; is this going to have an impact on the Council real estate tax measure; does the proponents of this measure have to pay for the report; what are the parameters for this report; since this is a forever measure, will there still be a need for housing in the future; can we earmark funds to achieve our diversity goals in the schools; and, what is the impact of using funds to expand the POD program.

Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to approve the recommendation. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, with all members present.

PUBLIC INPUT: Members of the public Lucian Tudor, Shifra Ben-Jacob, Johnathan Foster, and Bennett commented on various local issues.

ADJOURNMENT
Councilmembers Parra and
Brock were excused at 2:11
a.m.

On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 1:29 a.m., to consider closed sessions and returned at 2:12 a.m., with all members present, except Councilmembers Parra and Brock to report the following:

1.C. Conference with Labor Negotiator: Government Code Section 54957.6 -- Agency Designated Representatives: City Manager David White and Chief People Officer Lori Gentles; Bargaining Units: ATAAdministrative Team Associates; IBT-California Teamsters Local 911; FEMA-Santa Monica Fire Executive Management Association; FIRESanta Monica Firefighters Local 1109 IAFF; MEA-Municipal

5.G
Packet Pg. 127 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 18 June 14, 2022
Employees Association; AFSCME Local 4819, Management Team Association; PALSSU-Public Attorneys’ Legal Support Staff Union; PAU- Public Attorneys Union; POA-Santa Monica Police Officer Association; SMART TD-The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Division, Local 1785; STASupervisory Team Associates; Coalition of Santa Monica City Employees.

The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

On order of the Mayor, the City Council adjourned at 2:13 a.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor

5.G
Packet Pg. 128 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 1 July 14, 2022
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 14, 2022
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 6:08 p.m., on Thursday, July 14, 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 (arrived at 6:22 p.m.)
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre
Councilmember Christine Parra (arrived at 6:20 p.m.)
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 6:08 p.m., with all members present except Councilmembers Parra and Negrete. Councilmember Davis led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, to hear Item 12.A. before the Board and Commission appointments. The motion was approved by voice vote, with Councilmembers Parra and Negrete absent.

CHARTER CODE
SECTION 615
The Mayor read for the record, that in accordance to Charter section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present dissents. There were no dissentions from Councilmembers present.

PUBLIC INPUT ON
8- ITEMS and 16
ITIEM:

Members of the public Denise Barton, Olga Zurawska (time donated by Ana Shapiro) commented on Boards and Commission appointments.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

OCEAN AVENUE

PROJECT

DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT

12.A. Adoption of Resolution Nos. 11442 (CCS) through 11444 (CCS) and Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to adopt the Ocean Avenue Project Development Agreement, was presented.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that the Council take the following actions:

5.H
Packet Pg. 129 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 July 14, 2022
Councilmember de la
Torre was excused at
6:18 p.m.

Councilmember Parra
arrived at 6:20 p.m.

Councilmember Negrete
arrived at 6:22 p.m.

1. Affirm that the Ocean Avenue Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 11442 (CCS) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA;

3. Adopt Resolution No. 11443 (CCS) adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations to support approval of the Development Agreement based upon the Final EIR and other information provided in the record and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;

4. Adopt Resolution No. 11444 (CCS) amending the 1992 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LUP) for consistency with the 2010 General Plan and 2017 Downtown Community Plan standards for the project site; and

5. Introduce an ordinance for first reading to adopt Development Agreement 13DEV-004 for the Ocean Avenue Project.

Councilmember de la Torre recused himself from this item to avoid any perceived conflict of interest, because Mr. Worth’s Family Foundation has supported the Pico Youth and Family Center in previous years.

Ex-Parti Communication
Councilmember Davis, on June 27th met with Jeff Worth at his office on Ocean Avenue at 4 p.m. to discuss the project and examine the two models that are here in the Council chambers.

Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, on July 8th met with Mr. Worth, Paula Larmore and Jenna for about an hour at the site going over the project and hearing their presentation. Additionally, Jenna bought the Mayor Pro Tem a coffee.

Mayor Himmelrich, on July 7th at 3:00 p.m. met with Mr. Worth, Jenna, with Tony Vazquez and looked at the models. Met and talked a long time ago about issues of concern that have since been addressed.

Councilmember Brock, met with Jeff Worth on May 23rd at 1 p.m. to view the models.

Councilmember Parra, on July 8th, met with Mr. Worth, Jenna and Paula Larmore to discuss and review the scope of the project.

Councilmember Negrete, at the end of May or the beginning of June, met with Paula Larmore at the project site to discuss about the length of the project and to have questions answered.

Members of the public Alicia Mignano, Emily McCarron, Tommy Faavae, Kurt Petersen, Denise Barton, Matt Stauffer, Bruria Finkel, James Mary O’Connor, Elizabeth Hartwell, Albin Gielicz, Tom Cleys (time donated by Carolyne Edwards),

5.H
Packet Pg. 130 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 July 14, 2022
Zakiya, Nancy Cetner, Chris Hannan, Christina Sanchez, and Zachary Gaidzik spoke to the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered included: where is the concern about people being able to access the rooftop, even if they don’t have a dollar to pay; what happened with the ability to allow free entry for those 12 or 13 and under; is there a way to make sure that this museum reflects the history and feel of Santa Monica, including the Pier, the Historical Society, and the Arts; how did they arrive at 285 parking spaces, and is there a way to construct the agreement to say a maximum of 285 parking spaces; will there be opportunities to change the language to say Santa Monica schools, for access, but providing transportation would only be for public schools; and, can the days the rooftop is closed for non-profits events goes from five to six days.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to: set our standards high for the types of art that will be displayed and rotated in the museum; amend agreement to so that the museum allow free entry for 10 and under; amend agreement to add language to the agreement to say up to a maximum of 285 parking spaces; amend agreement to say Santa Monica schools, but transportation will only be for Santa Monica public schools, and amend the agreement to change the number of days the rooftop will be closed for non-profit events from five to six days; thanks to Mr. Gehry for giving back to the city with this project; this project will be a tourist magnet with the architecture of the buildings, as well as the museum; gratified by the developers attention to detail, being considerate of what Santa Monica wants and needs; and, appreciation for the open space connected to the living space.

The applicant was agreeable to the amendments proposed during discussion.

Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, to approve the staff recommendation with the adjustments and amendments discussed. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember de la Torre

CONTINUED
ITEMS:

ANNUAL

APPOINTYMENTS
Councilmember de la
Torre returned at
8:05 p.m.

8.A. Annual Appointments to the following Boards and Commissions, was presented.

Board/Commission No. of
Seats
Term
End Date
Special Requirements
Architectural Review
Board 2 6/30/2026
At least one shall be a
professional licensed
architect.

5.H
Packet Pg. 131 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 July 14, 2022
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Barbara Coffman and Kevin Daly.

There being no other nominations, Barbara Coffman and Kevin Daly were reappointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Architectural Review Board for a term ending June 30, 2026 Arts Commission 2 6/30/2026 Reside or work in
Santa Monica
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Mary Elizabeth Michaels.

There being no other nominations, Mary Elizabeth Michaels was reappointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Arts Commission for a term ending June 30, 2026
Councilmember Brock nominated Kara Fox.

Councilmember Davis nominated Federico Galavis.

Federico Galavis was appointed to the Arts Commission for a term ending June 30, 2026, by the following vote:

Galavis: Councilmembers Negrete, Davis
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
Fox: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Parra
Commission on
Sustainability,
Environmental Justice
and the Environment
2 6/30/2026
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Robert Lempert.

There being no other nominations, Robert Lempert was reappointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment for a term ending June 30, 2026.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Dr. Alexandra Tower.

5.H
Packet Pg. 132 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 July 14, 2022
There being no other nominations, Dr. Alexandra Tower was appointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment for a term ending June 30, 2026.

Disabilities Commission 3 6/30/2026
At least two must be selfidentified persons with a
disability.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Joseph Antognini and Alexandra Blanc.

There being no other nominations, Joseph Antognini and Alexandra Blanc were appointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Disability Commission for terms ending June 30, 2026.

Housing Commission 2 6/30/2026
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Councilmember Davis nominated Leonora Camner.

Councilmember Brock nominated Kate Evarts.

Kate Evarts was appointed to the Housing Commission for a term ending June 30, 2026, by the following vote:

Evarts: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Parra Camner: Councilmember Davis
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
Councilmember Davis nominated Lydia Garcia.

Councilmember Brock nominated Desmond Borresen.

Desmond Borresen was appointed to the Housing Commission for a term ending June 30, 2026, by the following vote:

Borresen: Councilmembers Brock, Parra, Negrete, de la Torre Garcia: Councilmember Davis
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
Landmarks Commission 3 6/30/2026
At least one must be a local
historian and one an
architectural historian.

5.H
Packet Pg. 133 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 July 14, 2022
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Councilmember Davis nominated Dolores Sloan.

There being no other nominations, Dolores Sloan was reappointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Landmarks Commission for a term ending June 30, 2026.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Roger Genser.

There being no other nominations, Roger Genser was reappointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Landmarks Commission for a term ending June 30, 2026.

Councilmember Brock nominated Paddy Calistro McAuley.

Councilmember Davis nominated Jonathan Kaplan.

Jonathan Kaplan was appointed to the Landmarks Commission for a term ending June 30, 2026, by the following vote:

Kaplan: Councilmembers Negrete, Davis
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
McAuley: Councilmember de la Torre, Brock, Parra
Personnel Board 1 6/30/2027
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Councilmember de la Torre nominated Janine Bush.

There being no other nominations, Janine Bush was appointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Personnel Board for a term ending June 30, 2027.

Planning Commission 1 6/30/2026
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Councilmember Negrete nominated Shawn Landres.

There being no other nominations, Shawn Landres was reappointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Planning Commission for a term ending June 30, 2026.

Councilmember Brock moved to reopen the nomination.

5.H
Packet Pg. 134 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 July 14, 2022
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to establish that applications received by July 11, 2022 are timely for the purpose of appointment. 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
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Councilmember Brock nominated Thomas Ciszek.

Councilmember Negrete nominated Shawn Landres.

Shawn Landres was reappointed to the Planning Commission for a term ending June 30, 2026, by the following vote:

Landres: Councilmembers Negrete, Davis
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
Ciszek: Councilmember de la Torre, Brock, Parra
Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock and Parra changed their votes, thereby reappointing Shawn Landres by acclamation to the Planning Commission, with all members present.

Public Safety Reform
and Oversight
Commission
2 6/30/2026
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Craig R. Miller and Joseph Palazzolo.

There being no other nominations, Craig R. Miller and Joseph Palazzolo were reappointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission for a term ending June 30, 2026.

Recreation and Parks
Commission 2 6/30/2026
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Andrew Gomez and John Cyrus Smith.

There being no other nominations, Andrew Gomez and John Cyrus Smith were reappointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Recreation

5.H
Packet Pg. 135 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 July 14, 2022
and Parks Commission for a term ending June 30, 2026.

Santa Monica Library
Board 2 6/30/2026
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Judith Meister.

There being no other nominations, Judith Meister was reappointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2026.

Councilmember Negrete nominated Dana Newman.

Councilmember Davis nominated Ralinda Harvey Smith.

Dana Newman was appointed to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2026, by the following vote:

Newman: Councilmembers Parra, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre Harvey Smith: Councilmembers Davis
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
Mayor Himmelrich changed her vote to Dana Newman.

Santa Monica Travel &
Tourism, Inc. 3 6/30/2026
Shall be from Santa Monica's
community and business
leadership.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Darlene Evans.

Councilmember Brock nominated Karen Ginsberg.

Darlene Evans was reappointed to Santa Monica Travel & Tourism, Inc. for a term ending June 30, 2026, by the following vote:

Evans: Councilmembers Davis, Negrete, de la Torre
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
Ginsberg: Councilmembers Parra, Brock
Mayor Himmelrich nominated Karen Ginsberg.

There being no other nominations, Karen Ginsberg was appointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to Santa Monica Travel & Tourism, Inc. for a term ending June 30, 2026.

5.H
Packet Pg. 136 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 July 14, 2022
Councilmember Negrete nominated Kera Blades-Snell.

Councilmember Brock nominated Judi Barker.

Kera Blades-Snell. was appointed to Santa Monica Travel & Tourism, Inc. for a term ending June 30, 2026, by the following vote:

Blades-Snell: Councilmembers Negrete, Davis,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
Barker: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Parra

RECREATION AND
PARKS

COMMISSION

8.B. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Recreation and Parks Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2024, was presented.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Councilmember Davis nominated Sean Besser.

Councilmember Brock nominated Steven Johnson.

Steven Johnson was appointed to the Recreation and Parks Commission for a term ending June 30, 2024, by the following vote:

Besser: Councilmember Davis
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
Johnson: Councilmembers Parra, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Himmelrich

PUBLIC SAFETY

REFORM AND

OVERSIGHT

COMMISSION

8.C. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2024, was presented.

On order of the Mayor Pro Tem, the floor was opened for nominations.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Michele Wittig.

Councilmember Davis nominated Brian Stedge-Stroud.

Councilmember Brock nominated Paul Winnemore
Winnemore: Councilmembers Parra, Negrete, Brock
Wittig: Councilmember de la Torre
Mayor Himmelrich
Stedge-Stroud: Councilmember Davis
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
With no one receiving four votes, the Mayor opened the floor for nominations.

Councilmember Brock nominated Paul Winnemore
Councilmember Davis nominated Brian Stedge-Stroud.

5.H
Packet Pg. 137 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 10 July 14, 2022
Paul Winnemore was appointed to the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission for a term ending June 30, 2024, by the following vote:

Winnemore: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Parra, Mayor Himmelrich
Stedge-Stroud: Councilmember Davis,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan changed their vote to Paul Winnemore.

Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to reopen the nomination. The motion was approved by acclamation, with all members present.

Councilmember de la Torre nominated Brian Stedge-Stroud.

Councilmember Brock nominated Paul Winnemore
Brian Stedge-Stroud was appointed to the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission for a term ending June 30, 2024, by the following vote:

Winnemore: Councilmembers Brock, Negrete, Parra
Stedge-Stroud: Councilmember de la Torre, Davis
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
Councilmembers Brock, Negrete and Parra changed their votes to Brian StedgeStroud, thereby appointing Stedge-Stroud by acclamation to the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission, with all members present.

HUMAN SERVICES

COMMISSION

8.D. Appointments to Nine Seats on the Newly Created Human Services Commission for Two Partial Terms Ending on 6/30/2023, Two Partial Terms Ending on 6/30/2024, Two Partial Terms Ending on 6/30/2025, Two Full-Terms Ending on 6/30/2026 and One Full-Term Ending on 6/30/2027, was presented.

On order of the Mayor Pro Tem, the floor was opened for nominations.

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Boyko Buchinsky, Kelly Creffield, Alexis M.

Hemphill-Elsea, Tamara S. Kagel, Marielle A. Kriesel, Bruce J. Leddy, Pamela Ramer and Sonya Wilson.

There being no other nominations, Boyko Buchinsky, Kelly Creffield, Alexis M.

Hemphill-Elsea, Tamara S. Kagel, Marielle A. Kriesel, Bruce J. Leddy, Pamela Ramer and Sonya Wilson were appointed by acclamation by a unanimous vote in their favor to the Human Services Commission.

COUNCILMEMBER

DISCUSSION

16.A. Request of Mayor Himmelrich that the City Council allocate the $29,000 of annual BID funding and $18,000 of Discretionary Funds previously discussed

5.H
Packet Pg. 138 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 11 July 14, 2022
ITEMS:

DISCRETIONARY
FUNDS
at their May 24, 2022 Budget Study Session. The funds include $10,000 to the Westside Coalition for their annual Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration, $5,000 to the Santa Monica Little League to repair the scoreboard at Los Amigos Park and $3,000 to Samohi for their bilingual graduation celebration. The motion to officially allocate the funds was inadvertently left off of the agenda for the June 28, 2022 Council meeting where the FY 22-23 budget was adopted, was presented.

A correction was made that $5,000 goes to the Santa Monica Pony League to repair the scoreboard at Los Amigos Park.

Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, to approve the recommendation, as restated and amended. 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
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor

5.H
Packet Pg. 139 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office
Subject: Certification of Qualified Initiative Petition Measure to Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools and Adoption of Resolution to Place Measure on the November 8, 2022 Ballot Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive and file the attached Certification of Qualification regarding an Initiative Measure to Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools by Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 to provide a Third Tier Transfer Tax Rate for Property Transfers of $8,000,000 or more with an Eleven-Member Resident Oversight Committee;

2. Adopt the attached resolution requesting and directing the actions necessary to place the measure on the November 8, 2022 General Municipal ballot.

Executive Summary
On June 15, 2022, an Initiative Measure to Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools by Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 to provide a Third Tier Transfer Tax Rate for Property Transfers of $8,000,000 or more with an Eleven-Member Resident Oversight Committee was submitted to the Office of the City Clerk and forwarded to the County RegistrarRecorder (“the County) for signature verification. On July 1, 2022, the County notified the City Clerk’s Office that the measure was being certified as containing the required number of signatures for placement on the ballot. At the June 14, 2022 City Council

8.A
Packet Pg. 140
2 of 4
meeting, Council requested a report pursuant to Election Code 9212 from the City Manager on this ballot measure, which is attached to this report.

Accordingly, staff recommends that Council receive and file the certification and adopt the attached resolution, which requests and directs the actions necessary to place the initiative on the November 8, 2022, ballot.

Discussion
California Elections Code section 9215 authorizes the governing body of a city to place proposed initiative ballot measures on the ballot, the measure shall be submitted to the voters at an established statewide general election occurring in not less than 88 days.

The section establishes that the action of placing the certified petition on the ballot is ministerial, not discretionary. Thus, if the County certifies the petition, the law requires the City Council to send the measure to the voters.

On March 10, 2022, proponents of the measure notified the City Clerk’s Office of their intent to circulate an initiative petition. On March 23, 2022, the City Attorney prepared a ballot title and summary, as required by law, which describes the measure as an Initiative Measure to Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools by Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 to provide a third tier Transfer Tax Rate for Property Transfers of $8,000,000 or more with an Eleven-Member Resident Oversight Committee. Thereafter, the proponents gathered signatures, and filed their signed petition with the City Clerk’s Office on June 15, 2022.

Upon submittal of the petition, the City Clerk requested the Los Angeles County Clerk/Registrar Recorder (“County Clerk”) verify the signatures submittal therein. In order to qualify the measure for the November 2022 election, the petition needed a minimum of 10% of the registered voters of the city. The registered voter population at the time of publishing was 69,292 and based on that number 6,930 valid signatures were needed for qualification. The County Clerk’s Office has verified that the petitions

8.A
Packet Pg. 141
3 of 4
contain the minimum number of valid signatures required to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot for a public vote.

On July 1, 2022, the County notified the City Clerk that the measure had received the required number of signatures, which is 10% of the voters or 6,930. The County found that 10,363 signatures were filed, three signatures were withdrawn, 8,413 signatures were verified, 6,940 were found sufficient, 1,473 were not found sufficient, and 109 signatures were found not sufficient because the signatures were duplicates. See Attachment C.

The next statewide general election will occur on Tuesday, November 8, 2022. This measure could appear as an additional item on the ballot, which will include other contests, including federal, state, county, and local races and several other local measures. Thus, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to place the measure on that ballot.

Next Steps
Next steps are specified as requests and directives in the attached resolution. In summary, once the Council adopts the resolution, arguments for and against the measure will be prepared, the City Attorney will prepare an impartial analysis, and the City Clerk will transmit the materials to the County, which will prepare the ballot. The County will prepare and distribute the voter sample ballot. In addition, the 30-day report is attached to this report.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Costs related to implementation of the measure is unknown at this time. Funding is available in the FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget in account number 01110002.552010 (Professional Services) under the Elections Division of the Records & Election Services/City Clerk's Department.

8.A
Packet Pg. 142
4 of 4
Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. RES Initiative Ballot Measure 07262022 Final
B. Full text
C. Santa Monica_Letter of Findings_7.1.2022
D. Written Comments
E. 30 day transmittal and HRA Report
F. Written Comments
G. PowerPoint Presentation

8.A
Packet Pg. 143
1 City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TO AMEND SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.96 AND ADD CHAPTER 4.90 TO PROVIDE A THIRD TIER TRANSFER TAX RATE FOR PROPERTY TRANSFERS OF $8,000,000 OR MORE

WITH AN ELEVEN-MEMBER RESIDENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2022, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) received a petition to submit to the voters an initiative measure amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 and adding Chapter 4.90 to provide a third tier transfer tax rate for property transfers of $8,000,000 or more with an eleven-member resident oversight committee; and WHEREAS, under California Elections Code Section 9215(b), the ordinance, without alteration, and proposed by petition of the voters, shall be submitted to the voters at an established statewide general election pursuant to California Elections Code Section 1405, provided there are at least 88 days before the election; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2022, the City transmitted the petition to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder for signature verification; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10403, the City Council has previously requested that the County of Los Angeles consent and agree to the consolidation of all aspects of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for the purpose of electing members of the Santa Monica City Council, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, and the Santa Monica College Community College District; and

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: RES Initiative Ballot Measure 07262022 Final [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 2 WHEREAS, on July 1, 2022, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder completed the signature verification process and verified sufficient signatures were provided to require the measure to be placed on the ballot; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica shall place the following initiative measure on the ballot at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AND PROCLAIM AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. At the General Municipal Election called for November 8, 2022, the following measure shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Santa Monica:

MEASURE "__": Shall the measure
adding Santa Monica Municipal Code
Chapter 4.90 to establish designated
funds for schools, homelessness
prevention, and affordable housing, and
an eleven-member resident oversight
committee, and amending Chapter 6.96
to provide a third tier transfer tax rate of
$56.000 per $1,000 of value for property
transfers of $8,000,000 or more,
providing an estimated $50,000,000
annually for homelessness prevention,
affordable housing, and schools, until
repealed, be adopted?

YES ________
NO _________
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and with the county election department of the County of Los Angeles.

SECTION 3. That the City of Santa Monica recognizes that additional costs may be

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: RES Initiative Ballot Measure 07262022 Final [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 3 incurred by the County by reason of the addition of this measure to the ballot and agrees to reimburse the County for any additional costs.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall transmit to the City Attorney, in accordance with applicable law, a copy of the proposed measure. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of it, which shall not exceed 500 words in length. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. ln accordance with applicable law, not less than 10 calendar days before the City Clerk submits the official election materials for printing, the City Clerk shall make a copy of all applicable elections materials available for public examination in the City Clerk's office.

SECTION 5. The City Council authorizes its members, as follows, to file written arguments against the measure described above and which is contained in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein:

AGAINST:

All written arguments filed by any person in favor of or against any measure, including any rebuttal arguments, shall be accompanied by the names and signatures of the persons submitting the argument as required by applicable law, and any names, signatures and arguments may be filed until the time and date fixed by the City Clerk in accordance with applicable law, after which no change may be submitted to the City Clerk unless permitted by law.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall cause the text of the measure, which is contained in Exhibit 1, together with the City Attorney impartial analysis, and any arguments for or against the measure, as well as any rebuttal, to be mailed to all qualified voters with the sample ballot. In addition to other notices and publications required by law, the City Clerk, not less than forty (40) days and not more than sixty (60) days before the General Municipal

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: RES Initiative Ballot Measure 07262022 Final [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 4 Election, shall cause the text of the measure to be published once in the official newspaper and in each edition thereof during the day of publication. The City Clerk is authorized to give such notices and to fix such times and dates as are required by law or which are appropriate to conduct properly the election.

SECTION 7. The provisions of Resolution Numbers 11425 and 11426 (CCS) are referred to and incorporated into this resolution for more particulars concerning the conduct of General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022, and in all respects the election shall be held and conducted as provided for by applicable law. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to procure and furnish any official ballots, notices, printed materials and all supplies or equipment that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: RES Initiative Ballot Measure 07262022 Final [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 5 Exhibit 1
PROPOSED INITIATIVE MEASURE TO AMEND SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.96 AND ADD CHAPTER 4.90 TO PROVIDE A THIRD TIER TRANSFER TAX RATE FOR PROPERTY TRANSFERS OF $8,000,000 OR MORE WITH AN ELEVEN-MEMBER RESIDENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: RES Initiative Ballot Measure 07262022 Final [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Full text (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Santa Monica_Letter of Findings_7.1.2022 (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Patricia Hoffman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 11:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No on 11A, Yes on 11B, Yes on 11D

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmembers:

I want to add my voice to the chorus of hundreds who have asked that you vote against putting Item 11A on the ballot. Please vote no on 11A. 11A is in direct competition with and could kill the people’s initiative in Item 11D.

More than 10,000 Santa Monica voters have said that they want to tax extremely high-value real estate in order to subsidize rent burdened low-income Santa Monicans to keep them from becoming homeless, to build more affordable housing for our local work force, and to continue to guarantee high quality schools even if Malibu takes its money and runs. I strongly support Item 11D. I know you will be voting yes on it but I hope you will do so enthusiastically and that you will enthusiastically support the measure since you will be helping so many of your constituents by doing so.

Right now you will also have the opportunity to help many of the tenants of Santa Monica by voting yes on Item 11B. You can also place a 3% cap on general adjustments to the maximum allowable rents, in addition to the other components of Item 11B.

You have a rare opportunity to be heroes to thousands of struggling Santa Monicans in this very scary moment of uncertainty. Please vote no on Item 11A. Please vote yes on Item 11B and yes on Item 11D.

Thank you,
Patricia Hoffman.

Item 11.D
07/12/22
1 of 4 Item 11.D
07/12/22

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Written Comments (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; David White; Douglas Sloan Subject: Item 11.D

EXTERNAL
Please adopt this and support it fully. We have a State that does not care much about poor people or seniors
and is providing just about nothing to help them in the way of housing.

We cannot afford to allow the developers and SMF/ Abundant Housing to co‐op this truth to result in the entire City being covered in market rate housing giving us only the mealsy 10% required affordable units. We must also support  the POD program and create other programs like it.

What a great program that is ..it's immediate and saves our landscape from the Chris Harding Ellis hammer.  Everyone bitches about the need to help these areas.but few offer effective solutions. This is jsut that and will be for a long time to come.

Thank you,
Danielle Charney
Resident since April Fools 1982
D. Certification of Qualified Initiative Petition Measure to Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools and Adoption of Resolution to Place Measure on the November 8, 2022 Ballot
To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

New Item Received 7/08/2022
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive and file the attached Certification of Qualification regarding an Initiative Measure to Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools by Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter

6.96 to provide a Third Tier Transfer Tax Rate for Property Transfers of $8,000,000 or more with an Eleven-Member Resident Oversight Committee; Item 11.D
07/12/22
2 of 4 Item 11.D
07/12/22

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Written Comments (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 2 2. Adopt the attached resolution requesting and directing the actions necessary toplace the measure on the November 8, 2022 General Municipal ballot.

Item 11.D
07/12/22
3 of 4 Item 11.D
07/12/22

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Written Comments (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Joanne Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 11:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: input for 11A & 11D on the 7/12 City council agenda

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I’m writing to you on behalf of the steering committee of Committee For Racial Justice (CRJ) about tonight’s Council agenda items 11A and 11D.

We see 11A as a “copy cat” effort, that some people call the developers’ initiative, as an attempt to thwart and replace the citizens’ initiative referenced in 11D (which provides housing support to keep people from being forced out of Santa Monica – many of whom are people of color ‐  and provides funds for building housing that more people can afford, as well as support for our schools).

We oppose, not only the lack of specificity in the “laundry list” (designed to sound appealing) of things that might be funded by 11A, but also the fact that all funds go into the City's general fund for the council to direct how they are spent.  In addition, not only is 11A designed to raise less money than 11D, the exemptions are designed to protect numerous large money transactions that benefit the wealthy (who will still do very well in those transactions).

CRJ and many other people in Santa Monica have long held concerns about the lack of affordable housing in our city.  We know that what is called “affordable” is not a real possibility for a number of our community members at the moment.  We want to maintain and improve the rich diversity of people who call Santa Monica home.  We urge you to vote NO on the cynical attempt embedded in 11A to tailor the transfer tax concept to protect wealth interests.  This transfer tax  is a concept first introduced by the petitions, signed by thousands of our neighbors, that are now represented in item 11D tonight .

We urge you to certify the Qualified Initiative of a well thought out and comprehensive  plan to help more people in our community to stay housed by voting YES on 11D.

These discussions tonight will reflect the priorities and justice & inclusion concerns of our city and we hope that its citizens will be well served by your decisions.

On behalf of Committee For Racial Justice Steering Committee, Joanne Berlin, Coordinator
Item 11.D
07/12/22
4 of 4 Item 11.D
07/12/22

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Written Comments (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) Transmittal Memorandum
Date: July 26, 2022
To: Mayor, Mayor Pro-Tem, and City Council
From: David White, City Manager
Gigi Decavalles-Hughes, Director of Finance
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
David Carr, Assistant City Treasurer
Subject: Filing of Attached Ballot Measure Impact Report on Citizens Initiative To Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing and Schools
Summary
On June 14, 2022, Council requested that the City Manager prepare a report pursuant to Section 9212 of the California Elections Code on a citizens’ initiative to Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, And Schools by Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 To Provide a Third Tier Transfer Tax Rate for Property Transfers of $8,000,000 or More with an eleven-member Resident Oversight Committee. The measure has qualified for placement on the November 8, 2022 ballot. The resolution directing the placement of the measure on the November 8 General Municipal ballot was originally presented to Council at the July 12, 2022 Council meeting, but the item was continued to the July 26, 2022 meeting.

Per the Elections Code, the report must be presented to the legislative body within the time prescribed by the legislative body, but no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition. This occurred on July 12, 2022. The impact report, as prepared by HR&A Advisors, Inc. is transmitted as an attachment to this memorandum.

Background
California Elections Code authorizes the governing body of a city to place qualifying initiative ballot measures on the ballot for an established statewide general election. The section establishes that the action of placing the certified petition on the ballot is

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) ministerial, not discretionary. Thus, if the County certifies the petition, the law requires the City Council to send the measure to the voters.

On March 10, 2022, proponents of the measure notified the City Clerk’s Office of their intent to circulate an initiative petition. On March 23, 2022, the City Attorney prepared a ballot title and summary, as required by law, which describes the measure as an Initiative Measure to Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools by Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 to provide a third tier Transfer Tax Rate for Property Transfers of $8,000,000 or more with an Eleven-Member Resident Oversight Committee. Thereafter, the proponents gathered signatures, and filed their signed petition with the City Clerk’s Office on June 15, 2022.

Upon submittal of the petition, the City Clerk requested the Los Angeles County Clerk/Registrar Recorder (“County Clerk”) verify the submitted signatures.

On July 1, 2022, the County notified the City Clerk that the measure had received the required number of signatures, which is 10% of the voters or 6,930. On July 12, 2022, the resolution directing actions necessary to place the measure on the November 8, 2022 ballot was presented to Council, however, the item was continued to July 26, 2022.

Discussion
Council has the ability to ask for a report on the impact of the initiative, as stated in Section 9212 of the California Elections Code:
(a) During the circulation of the petition, or before taking either action described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 9215, the legislative 9215 body may refer the proposed initiative measure to a city agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following:
(1) Its fiscal impact.
(2) Its effect on the internal consistency of the city’s general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(3) Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) (4) Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses.
(5) Its impact on the community’s ability to attract and retain business and employment.
(6) Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.
(7) Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization. (8) Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report. (b) The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time prescribed by the legislative body, but no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition.

Among the items that Council discussed including in the report were the potential funds that the measure might generate, what property transactions it would apply to, the composition of the resident oversight committee, and whether there would continue to be a need for funds dedicated to affordable housing in future years.

Because the potential ballot initiative is for a new tax revenue source and includes only limited information about proposed expenditures of the revenue to be collected, most of the illustrative examples of “impacts” in California Election Code Section 9212 cannot be analyzed. However, the report includes background information about this source of City revenue, explains the mechanics of how the revenue would be collected, provides a rough estimate of potential revenues based on past real estate sales, provides some general illustrations about how the City’s share of the tax revenues could be spent, and offers observations about potential risks to revenue collection or achievement of intended objectives.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
07/12/2022 Approval of Third Modification to Professional Services Agreement with HR&A Advisors, Inc. for Preparation of a Report Pursuant to Section 9212 of the California Elections Code on a Citizens’ Ballot Initiative
7/12/2022 Certification of Qualified Initiative Petition Measure to Establish Added Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing,

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) and Schools and Adoption of Resolution to Place Measure on the November 8, 2022 Ballot

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) New York | Atlanta | Dallas | Los Angeles | Raleigh | Washington DC

MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council
From: HR&A Advisors, Inc.

Date: July 21, 2022
Re: Impact Report for the “Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools” Ballot Measure

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF THE MEMORANDUM
This memorandum was prepared in response to a motion by the City Council of the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) on June 14, 2022, requesting the City Manager to prepare an “impact report” pursuant to Section 9212 of the California Elections Code on an initiative titled:

An Initiative Measure To Establish Added Funding For Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, And Schools By Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 To Provide A Third Tier Transfer Tax Rate For Property Transfers Of $8,000,000 Or More With An Eleven Member Resident Oversight Committee, seeking to qualify and be placed on the November 8, 2022 ballot.
(Hereinafter referred to as the “Ballot Measure”).

The Ballot Measure is proposed by Mayor Sue Himmelrich, Michael Soloff and Jon Katz. A petition was circulated in the City to place this initiative measure on the November 8, 2022 ballot. The County of Los Angeles (the “County”) Registrar-Recorder/City Clerk certified to the Santa Monica City Clerk in a letter dated July 1, 2022, that the Ballot Measure qualified under the rules set forth in the California Elections Code Sections 9200-9226. The City Council is scheduled to adopt a resolution on July 26 requesting and directing the actions necessary to place the Ballot Measure on the November 8, 2022 General Municipal ballot.

Per the Elections Code, the impact report must be presented to the legislative body no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition.

The Council action directing preparation of the report also requested that it be presented to City Council as soon as possible, but not later than July 26, 2022. Due to time and City staff limitations, the City Attorney retained and authorized HR&A Advisors, Inc (“HR&A”) on June 26, 2022 to begin preparing the report, subject to subsequent City Council approval of an amendment to an existing contract between HR&A and the City for related services, which was approved on July 12, 2022.

HR&A is a mission-driven, national real estate advisory, economic development, and public policy consultant with an extensive body of previous consulting work for the City on a wide range of city

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 2 planning, housing policy, economic, and financial matters over more than three decades. This memorandum is intended to fulfill the Council’s request for an impact report on the Ballot Measure.

CERTAIN LIMITATIONS OF THE IMPACT ANALYSIS
As noted above, the Elections Code provides only a 30-day window for completion of this impact report. As a practical matter, it had to be completed in less than 30 days to accommodate the City Council agenda material review process and release to the City Council and public in advance of the July 26 regular City Council meeting when this memo will be presented and discussed, as requested. This severe schedule constraint, and City cost concerns, limit the level of analytic depth than HR&A could deploy to assess Ballot Measure impacts.

Furthermore, the Ballot Measure itself is primarily a revenue raising measure for certain categories of expenditures that are only outlined in general terms. Therefore, until subsequent decisions are made by the City Council about how to spend the new revenues, it is not possible to analyze most of the “impact” categories of those decisions, within the meaning of the Elections Code.1 These limitations should be considered in reviewing this memorandum.

ANALYSIS APPROACH AND DATA SOURCES
HR&A’s approach to preparing the analysis reported in this memorandum included the following tasks:
• Detailed review of the full text of the Ballot Measure, the City Attorney’s Official Summary of the Ballot Measure, the Ballot Measure petition, review of information about the Ballot Measure published by the proponents, and discussions with its proponents to clarify intent and meaning about the Ballot Measure;
• Review of the City’s existing real estate transfer tax ordinance, including amendments contained in Measure SM, enacted by City voters in November 2020; • Assembly and review of historical real estate transfer tax revenues, as contained in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (i.e., audited financial statements), and discussions with City Finance Department officials about those revenues; • Assembly and analysis of residential and commercial real estate sales with values of $8 million or more in Santa Monica during calendar years 2012 to 2021, which correspond roughly to the City Fiscal Years 2011-12 to 2020-21. These data were derived from proprietary real estate sales databases to which HR&A has access, including the Multiple 1 Examples of “impacts” mentioned in Elections Code 9212 include: effects on the internal consistency of the city’s general and specific plans, consistency between planning and zoning; effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs; impact on funding for infrastructure; whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings; impact on the community’s ability to attract and retain business and employment; impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land; and impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 3 Listing Service (for residential sales) and the CoStar real estate data base (for commercial sales);
• Detailed discussions with City Finance Department and City Community Services Department officials to obtain data on City expenditures over the same 2012-2021 period that generally align with the expenditure categories in the Ballot Measure; • Interviews with 8 senior real estate industry professionals with knowledge of and experience working in Santa Monica to assemble their views about potential impacts of the Ballot Measure’s new tax level;
• A brief review of available professional literature about the impacts of the real estate transfer tax on local economies;2
• Review of on-line City Council meetings when this matter was discussed in recent months; • Review of numerous local news articles about the Ballot Measure; and • Consideration of City staff comments on a preliminary draft of this memorandum.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Ballot Measure seeks to add funding for homelessness prevention, affordable housing, and schools by amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 to provide a new Third Tier Tax Rate for real estate transfers of $8,000,000 or more. The proposed Third Tier Rate would be $56.00 per $1,000 of value transferred (i.e., sale price), of which $50.00 is net new.

After assembling and analyzing residential and commercial real estate sales with values of $8 million or more in Santa Monica during calendar years 2012 to 2021, HR&A developed revenue estimates based on the proposed incremental Tier 3 tax rate (i.e., 5.0% of 5.6% total) as if it had been in effect over that period and assuming there would not have been any changes in market or other conditions over that time period due to the higher tax rate.

During this time period, there were 286 qualifying property transfers, representing $9.8 billion in sales value. With the additional 5.0 percent tax, these transfers would have generated $490 million in tax revenues. This included:
• 52 single-family home and condominium sales, representing $595 million in sale value, translating to roughly $29.8 million in tax revenue from the Ballot Measure’s incremental Tier 3 tax rate, six percent of total incremental tax revenue; and . • 234 commercial and multi-family property sales, representing $9.2 billion in sale value, translating to roughly $460 million in tax revenue, and 94 percent of total incremental tax revenue.

This translates to an annual average of $49 million in additional tax revenue that would have been derived from the Ballot Measure had it been in place over this decade. Based on the funding 2 See for example: Office of Economic Analysis, Office of the Controller, City & County of San Francisco, “Increases to the Transfer Tax Rate for Properties Over $10 Million: Economic Impact Report,” September, 23, 2020, available at:
https://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Economic%20Analysis/161351- 170208_economic_impact_final.pdf (hereinafter, “Controller’s Transfer Tax Impact Report”).

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 4 allocations in the Ballot Measure, in an average year the Tier 3 tax rate would generate $10 million to the School Fund and $39 million to the Homelessness Prevention & Affordable Housing Fund.

During the 2012-2021 timeframe there was substantial year-to-year variation in the number of qualifying property transfers, concentrations of very large sales, and total sale value that would have been subject to the Tier 3 tax. Qualifying property sales ranged from a low of $318 million (2014) to a high of $2.5 billion (2016), translating to estimated revenues of $16 million and $123.0 million, respectively.

After analyzing existing City expenditures roughly comparable to those described in the Ballot Measure for the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund, the estimated annual average of $39 million in new tax revenue for that Fund represents about a 293 percent increase in funding now allocated by the City for such programs.

Every year, realizing the same scale of revenue as estimated for the 2012- 2021 period will be subject to several ongoing risks, some of which are a direct result of the introduction of the Tier 3 tax rate. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Economic and real estate market cycle variability;
• Uneven number and frequency of large transactions;
• Project feasibility impacts to new development and redevelopment projects; • Economic and fiscal impacts from any reductions in development or investment activity; • Increase in tax avoidance behavior; and
• Potential Litigation.

In addition, there are also implementation risks to achieving the programmatic benefits these additional resources could provide. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Compliance, implementation, and enforcement staffing needs; • Eligibility criteria, which may reduce disbursement flexibility; and Concerns Regarding Coordination of Expenditure Decisions and Operation of the Residents Committee.

In conclusion, if voters approve the Ballot Measure as proposed, new annual tax revenues of about $49 million per year could result, based on the pattern of sales of $8 million or more between 2012 and 2021. Depending on specific future spending recommendations by the Ballot Measure’s Resident Oversight Committee, and approval or modification of the those recommendations by the City Council within the revenue allocation framework contained in the Ballot Measure, the new tax revenues could make significant progress in addressing the needs of homeless persons, rentburdened existing low-income households, and a need for additional dwelling units affordable to low- and moderate-income households, as the Ballot Measure’s proponents suggest. But because of the scale of Tier 3 tax rate included in the Ballot Measure, and other issues discussed below, there are reasons to be cautious about whether the scale of estimated new tax revenue predicated on previous sales over the past 10 years would materialize to the same degree year over year in the future. And, also for reasons described below, caution is warranted about the City’s ability to

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 5 deliver effective programs and new affordable units, to the degree that the Residents Oversight Committee and City Council may recommend.

ORGANIZATION OF THE MEMO
The remainder of this memorandum includes the following sections:
• A summary of the Ballot Measure’s provisions, including additional tax rates, allocation of tax revenues to specified uses, and a new expenditure decision making process; • An overview of Santa Monica’s existing real estate transfer tax ordinance and how it compares to a selection of other California cities;
• Estimates of Ballot Measure tax revenues based on historical sale trends for qualifying sales during 2012-2021;
• Estimates of how annual average revenue derived from the Ballot Measure compare to similar existing City spending allocations for homelessness prevention and affordable housing unit production;
• An assessment of risk to the future achievement of Ballot Measure revenues derived from historical sales and certain program implementation risks; and • Overall conclusions from the analysis.

SUMMARY OF THE BALLOT MEASURE
The Ballot Measure seeks to add funding for homelessness prevention, affordable housing, and schools by amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 to provide a new Third Tier Tax Rate for real estate transfers of $8.0 million or more. The proposed Third Tier Rate would be $56.00 per $1,000 of value transferred (i.e., sale price), of which $50 is in addition to the City’s existing tax rate schedule.

The new revenue sought by the Ballot Measure is intended to help address a series of needs and conditions, which we summarize below from review of the Ballot Measure’s Findings and Purpose, information about the Ballot Measure prepared by its proponents, and an HR&A interview with Ballot Measure proponents, including the following:
• A large proportion of City residents whose incomes fall into the low-income category, a large percentage of whom are rent-burdened, some severely under federal definition, and the stark choices some of these households are forced to make between paying for rent or other basic needs;
• A causal linkage between rent burden and homelessness and the number of unsheltered homeless individuals in the City;
• The prevalence of seniors, children and persons with physical and mental challenges among both the City’s rent-burdened and homeless populations; • A need for economically stable housing of physical quality and good public educational programs for children in low-income households;

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 6 • Depletion of the City’s supply of affordable rental units subject to the City’s Rent Control Law, due to operation of the Ellis Act and the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act; • An unusually large annual adjustment to Maximum Allowable Rents that the City’s Rent Control Board was required to approve under existing law and regulations, which compounds the rent burden on lower-income households;
• Despite the City’s robust Affordable Housing Production Program, the “inclusionary” requirement on market-rate apartment and condominium development does not and will not produce enough new dwelling units to meet City needs;
• An elevated numerical requirement for the City to facilitate and produce new affordable housing and address racial injustices, pursuant to state Housing Element Law; • A history of City residents’ support for programs and actions to alleviate these conditions, and a history and wide variety of City programs, supported by extensive funding and associated regulations to help alleviate these conditions; • Insufficient revenue for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District to serve student academic and other needs, including inconsistent funding for student services, such as counselors, nurses, mental health services, and after-school programming. • A deeply held belief in the value of a socio-economically diverse City population, which for the reasons described above, is in danger of either extreme household income bifurcation or homogenization at the upper end of the household income spectrum; • A lack of financial resources from the federal, state and County governments to match the City’s independent efforts to a degree that is equal to the scale of the task; and • After consideration of alternatives for generating more City funding to meet these needs, an increase in the City’s real estate transfer tax is an appropriate means for doing so, particularly when a similar tax increase measure may be enacted by City of Los Angeles voters in the same November 2022 election.

Some of these points are supported by the City’s own analysis, as reported in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update3 and the City Rent Control Board’s annual report.4 Currently, there are two City real estate transfer tax rates. The First Tier Tax Rate ($3.00 per $1000 of value transferred) applies to transfers under $5 million and the Second Tier Tax Rate ($6.00 per $1000 of value transferred) applies to transfers of $5 million or more. Because values of $8.0 million or more also exceed $5.0 million, transfer values of $8.0 million or more would be subject to both the Second Tier Rate and the new Third Tier Rate (i.e., a total of $56.00 per $1,000), as shown in Figure 1. The tiered City tax rates are in addition to the $1.10/$1,000 rate applied by the County of Los Angeles (the “County”).
3 See, for example, the Housing Needs Assessment Appendix in the June 2022 Draft Housing Element Update, available at: https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Housing-Element-Update-2021-to2029/Adopted%20Appendix%20B%20Housing%20Needs%20Clean.pdf. More recent data on rent-burdened lowincome households in Santa Monica is available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at:
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html
4 Available at: https://www.smgov.net/Departments/RentControl/content.aspx?id=11090

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 7 Figure 1: City of Santa Monica Documentary Transfer Tax Rates (Under Proposed Ballot Measure) City Transfer Tax Tier Transfer Value Tax Rate
1 Under $5.0 million 0.3% or $3 tax per $1,000 of value 2 $5,000,000-$7,999,999 0.6% or $6 tax per $1,000 of value 3 $8.0 million or more 5.6% or $56 tax per $1,000 of value Sources: Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 6.96; Ballot Measure; HR&A Advisors Examples of how the Ballot Measure’s incremental and total Tier 3 tax rate would apply to sales at different prices of $8 million or more are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Tax Revenue from the Ballot Measure at a Range of Sale Prices of $8 million or More Sale Price Tier 2 Tax Rate
(0.6% or $6/1,000)
Proposed Tier 3 Tax
Rate (5% or
$50/$1,000)
Total Tax (5.6% or
$56/$1,000)
$8 million $48,000 $400,000 $448,000
$12 million $72,000 $600,000 $672,000
$25 million $150,000 $1,250,000 $1,400,000
$50 million $300,000 $2,500,000 $2,800,000
$100 million $600,000 $5,000,000 $5,600,000
$200 million $1,200,000 $10,000,000 $11,200,000
Sources: Ballot Measure; HR&A Advisors
The Ballot Measure would add Chapter 4.90 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code establishing:

1. A new School Fund; and

2. A new Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund These two Funds comprise the “Allocated Funds.” Within the Third Tier Tax Rate of 5.6 percent, the additional revenue from the 5.0 percent rate would go to the Allocated Funds and revenue from the 0.6 percent Tier 2 tax rate would continue go to the City’s General Fund for basic City services.

The Ballot Measure outlines an annual distribution of the Allocated Funds. The first $10 million of revenue generated would be deposited into the School Fund and the next $40 million would be deposited into the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund. Of any Allocated Funds above $50 million each year, 20 percent would be deposited into the School Fund and 80 percent to the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund. These allocations are shown in Figure 3, assuming $60 million in annual revenue, for illustrative purposes.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 8 Figure 3: Allocation of an Example $60 Million Revenue Scenario Sources: Ballot Measure; HR&A Advisors
The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (“SMMUSD”) will receive the funds for the School Fund annually from the City. If Malibu schools are permitted by the California Board of Education to “unify” as that city has requested (i.e., separate all Malibu schools into a new public school district), this category of Ballot Measure funds would be allocated to the remining school district in Santa Monica. All expenditure decisions for these funds would be determined by the relevant school district Board of Education during the annual budget adoption process.

The Ballot Measure further specifies sub-allocations of annual expenditures from the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund, as follows (see Figure 4):
• No more than 6.0 percent of the revenue should be used for compliance, implementation, and administration, after which the remaining 94 percent would be allocated for:
• 30-50 percent to provide income assistance to rent burdened Santa Monica households, and
• At least 50 percent for acquiring, rehabilitating, or developing deed-restricted affordable housing units.
• Any remaining funds can be used to fund
o (1) tenancy preservation programs for extremely low income, very low income, low income, or moderate income households, which could include code compliance enforcement, legal services, loans, or grants for unit improvements; or o (2) a reserve fund for future funding of programs that provide services like the ones mentioned above.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 9 Figure 4: Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund Allocations Sources: Ballot Measure; HR&A Advisors
The Ballot Measure would establish an 11-member Resident Oversight Committee (the “Committee”), appointed by the City Council, to provide recommendations for expenditures from the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund. The Committee will consist of Santa Monica residents, four of whom must be from Lower Income Households consisting of at least one of the following, a senior citizen, a parent of minor children, an individual who faces mental or physical challenges, and an individual who is formerly homeless, in addition to seven members with expertise in the following fields: affordable housing financing, affordable housing development, law, accounting, and homelessness prevention. The City’s auditors will audit the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund annually and publicly provide the results to the Committee and the Audit Subcommittee of City Council.

For both Funds, the Ballot Measure expresses an intention that any revenues derived from the Third Tier Tax Rate are in addition to and not a replacement of any funds that the City otherwise provides for these purposes. However, the Ballot Measure does not specify a current year baseline for existing City expenditures. It should also be noted that because the Ballot Measure assigns its tax revenue proceeds to the specified special Funds, these revenues would not be available for any City General Fund purposes, such as public safety, parks, libraries, public realm maintenance, capital projects, or the City administrative costs to operate such programs.

The Ballot Measure does not contain a sunset provision. Therefore, the Third Tier Tax Rate, Allocated Fund specifications and sub-allocations by expenditure category will remain operative indefinitely and immune from changes by the City Council; these provisions could only be amended or changed through a subsequent ballot measure approved by a majority of City voters.

Administration,
6%
Income
Assistance,
30%
Affordable
Housing Units,
50%
Income
Assistance or
Other Specified
Uses, 20%
Fund Category Allocations

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 10 The text of the Ballot Measure is included in Appendix A. Should voters approve this measure, it will be effective on March 1, 2023.

SANTA MONICA’S REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX
The City of Santa Monica’s Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance derives from California’s Documentary Transfer Tax Act,
5 which allows counties and cities across the state to collect taxes on real estate transfers. The creation and delivery of a deed for any property triggers the documentary transfer tax. Counties collect taxes at the rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of value. General law cities are empowered to collect an additional transfer tax at one-half the county rate (i.e., $0.55/$1,000 of value). But, charter cities, like Santa Monica, are authorized to set city-specific tax rates that may exceed the usual city rate. Through its Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 6.96), Santa Monica currently collects additional taxes on property transfers as shown below in Figure 5.

Figure 5: City of Santa Monica Documentary Transfer Tax Rates (Current) Tier Transfer Value Tax Rate
1 Under $5.0 million 0.3% or $3 tax per $1,000 of value 2 $5.0 million and above 0.6% or $6 tax per $1,000 of value Sources: Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 6.96; HR&A Advisors The ordinance was enacted in 1967, and has been amended twice, in 1991 and 2020. The transfer tax delivers millions of dollars to the City each fiscal year. The revenues realized from the tax since FY 2011-12 are shown below in Figure 6.
5 California Revenue & Taxation Code, Sections 11911-11933.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 11 Figure 6: Santa Monica Documentary Transfer Tax Revenues: FY2011-12—FY2020-21 Source: City of Santa Monica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, FY 2020-21, Table 5, p. 155; HR&A Advisors Since Measure SM’s implementation in March 2021 this tax revenue category has increased by an additional $6.6 million.

Santa Monica is not alone among California charter cities in extending and increasing its real estate transfer tax for General Fund revenue purposes or sometimes special expenditure categories.

Several cities in California and nationally have either recently approved real estate transfer tax measures or have proposed tax increase measures for purposes similar to those specified in the Ballot Measure. Some notable examples include:
• Berkeley, CA (2018): Voters increased the tax on the transfer of real property to 2.5 percent from 1.5 percent for sales and transfers over $1.5 million (to $26.10 per $1,000 of value). This measure directed revenues to the City’s General Fund and establishment of a homeless services panel.
• Culver City, CA (2020): Voters increased the tax rate for transfers over $1.5 million to

1.95 percent (to $20.60 per $1,000 of value), transfers over $3 million to 3.45 percent ($35.60 per $1,000 of value), and transfers over $10 million to 4.45 percent ($45.60 per $1,000 of value). This measure directed funds towards maintaining essential city services related to parks, public facilities, and streets, and programs for public school students, seniors, and the homeless.
• Los Angeles, CA (2022): In Novembers, voters will decide whether the City of Los Angeles will raise taxes on transfers between $5 million and $10 million to 4.0 percent and transfers over $10 million to 5.5 percent from the current 0.45% (to $41.10 and $55.10 per $1,000 of value, respectively). Should the measure pass, most of the funds will support acquisition, $5.2M
$6.0M $6.3M
$7.9M $7.9M
$11.0M
$8.2M
$9.8M
$6.9M
$9.3M
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Historic Transfer Tax Revenues

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 12 development, construction, and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing and provide support to affordable housing programs.
• San Francisco, CA (2020): Voters approved a transfer tax increase for transfers over $10 million where properties selling between $10 million and $25 million will pay a 5.5 percent tax (up from 2.5%) and properties selling or over $25 million will pay a 6.0 percent tax (up from 3.0%). This measure directed revenues to the City’s General Fund, though there was a successful advisory resolution to direct those funds to a COVID-19 relief fund and a new Social Housing Program Fund.
• Chicago, IL (2022): The City Council is considering an advisory referendum for the November election which would increase the transfer tax to 2.65 percent for all properties sold for $1.0 million or more ($26.50 per $1,000 of value). Should the referendum become law, the measure will direct revenues to homelessness prevention programming.

As a noteworthy example, San Francisco voters have approved four measures since 2008 that have impacted properties selling for over $5 million. Currently the City imposes the following tax rate scale on property transfers:
• 0.5% for properties over $100,000 ($5.00 per $1,000 of value). • 0.68% for properties over $250,000 ($6.80 per $1,000 of value) • 0.75% for properties over $1,0 million ($7.50 per $1,000 of value) • 2.25% for properties over $5,0 million ($22.50 per $1,000 of value) • 5.5% for properties over $10 million ($55.00 per $1,000 of value) • 6% for properties over $25.0 million ($60.00 per $1,000 of value) According to analysis by the Office of the Controller for the City and County of San Francisco, 6 between 2010 and 2016, 51 percent of all property sales over $10.0 million in San Francisco were commercial office properties, 16 percent were hotel properties, 10 percent were multi-family residential, and 3 percent were single-family residential. Since FY2014, the property tax transfer rate has translated to between $250M and $350M in tax revenues to the City and County of San Francisco, with a high of over $400 million in 2017.

Should Santa Monica voters approve the proposed Ballot Measure, the City’s transfer tax rate will be the highest in California for properties sold between $8.0 million and $25.0 million. The City and County of San Francisco will still have the highest rate for properties over $25.0 million. Figure 7 below compares the adopted and proposed tax rates among California cities. 6 Controller’s Transfer Tax Impact Report, op cit., p. 6.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 13 Figure 7: Property Transfer Tax Rates: California Cities City Transfer Tax Rates
Santa Monica
(proposed)

0.3%: <$5M

0.6%: $5M-$8M

5.6%: $8M+
Berkeley 1.5%: Up to $1.5M

2.5%: $1.5M+
Culver City

0.45%: <$1.5M

1.55%: $2M-$3M
3%: $3M-$10M
4%: $10M+
Los Angeles
(proposed)

0.45%: <$5M
4%: $5M-$10M

5.5%: $10M+
Oakland
1%: up to $300K

1.5%: $300K-2M

1.75%: $2M-$5M

2.5%: Over $5M
Richmond

0.7%: under $1M

1.25% $1M-$3M

2.5%: $3M-$10M
3%: $10M+
San Jose

0.33%: >$2M

1.08%: $2M-$5M

1.33%: $5M-$10M

1.83%: $10M+
San Francisco

0.5%: $100K-$250K

0.68%: $250K-$1M

0.75%: $1M-$5M

2.25%: $5M-$10M

5.5%: $10M-$25M
6%: $25M+
Sources: City of Santa Monica; californiacityfinance.com; HR&A Advisors Real estate transfers in LA County and the City are eligible for categories of exemptions that align with State law.
7 These include marital dissolutions, conveyance to establish sole and separate property of a spouse, reconveyance upon satisfaction of a debt, conveyance changing the manner in which title is held, deeds to secure debts, transfers to governmental agencies, corporate reorganizations, transfers pursuant to SEC orders, transfers of certain partnership interest, among others. Enactment of Measure SM in 2020 added a partial exemption for Affordable Housing Transfers. This partial exemption applies if the property transfer is to: (1) a nonprofit corporation, 7 Revenue & Taxation Code, Division 2, Part 6.7, Chapter 3, Sections 11921-11925.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 14 (2) a limited partnership or limited liability company in which a nonprofit corporation is the managing general partner or managing member, or (3) a community land trust; for a taxpayer making an Affordable Housing Transfer who receives prior approval from the City, wherein the seller is not required to pay the Tier 2 tax to the City, but must pay the Tier 1 tax rate on the entire transfer amount. Alternatively, a taxpayer making an Affordable Housing Transfer subject to the Tier 2 tax may seek a refund of the tax paid that exceeds the Tier 1 tax rate.

It is customary practice in Los Angeles County that payment of real estate transfer tax is a seller’s obligation. Procedurally, real estate transfer tax payments due are sent to the County RegistrarRecorder by the escrow officer implementing the sale transaction closing and flow of funds, pursuant to escrow instructions agreed to by the seller and buyer. Any eligible statutory or City exemptions from paying the real estate transfer tax are determined as part of the escrow instructions prior to payment to the County. Apparently, the County does not always verify compliance with eligible exemptions and the City is not in a position to know whether a seller has claimed an exemption and done so properly. As noted above, per Measure SM, sellers must apply to the City for certain additional exemptions from the City tax. City staff report there have been no such exemption applications since Measure SM became effective in March 2021.

Pursuant to an agreement between the County and City, the County collects the City real estate transfer tax payments and remits them to the City monthly, along with a listing of each sale transaction by record number and City tax amount and charges the City a small administrative fee for doing so. The City conducts an audit of a sample of the individual tax payments to ensure that that the City tax amount paid is correct.

ESTIMATED BALLOT MEASURE REVENUE BASED ON HISTORIC PROPERTY SALES DATA

APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS
It was not possible within the time available for this analysis to prepare a responsible projection of annual tax revenues that could result from approval of the Ballot Measure (e.g., by employing multiple regression modeling). The next-best approach is an estimate based on what the Ballot Measure would have generated over the previous 10 years of City tax revenues received, assuming none of the risks discussed further below would have changed real estate sale patterns. Our approach included a detailed review of the Ballot Measure text; analysis of commercial and multifamily property sales data from the widely utilized CoStar real estate database; and analysis of single-family home and condo sales from the Multiple Listing Service. We also consulted closely and reviewed preliminary estimates with the City’s Director of Finance and the Assistant City Treasurer.

For the reasons described above, the resulting City tax revenues are net of any applicable statutory or other exemptions. In addition, the scope of this report does not attempt to characterize the extent of the need for additional funding for K-12 education, affordable housing, and homelessness prevention programming, but only to develop an estimate of projected revenues and expenditures based on historical data.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 15

COMMERCIAL & MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES
Drawing from CoStar, a nationally renowned provider of commercial real estate information, we assembled and analyzed data on qualifying commercial and multi-family property sales between 2012-2021. Over that period, there were 234 commercial and multi-family sales, representing $9.2B in sales value. These property sales varied across the timeline, subject to changing economic conditions over the period. The results8 are shown in Figure 8 below:

Figure 8: Commercial & Multi-family Sales of $8 million or More in Santa Monica, 2012-2021 Year Number of Sales
$8M+ Total Sales
2012 18 $507M
2013 19 $692M
2014 11 $267M
2015 30 $1.0B
2016 39 $2.4B
2017 23 $1.0B
2018 30 $1.2B
2019 23 $1.0B
2020 20 $496M
2021 21 $504M
Total 234 $9.2B
Sources: CoStar; HR&A Advisors
Sales of office buildings, multi-family buildings, and retail properties represented 85 percent of all transactions and total property sales over the 10-year period between 2012-2021. In fact, sales of office buildings alone accounted for 42 percent of all transactions and 60 percent of all sales.

This is further illustrated in Figure 9 below.
8 For analytic convenience, this analysis utilizes calendar years rather than City fiscal years (i.e., July 1-June 30).

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 16 Figure 9: Commercial & Multi-family Sales of $8 million or more by Land Use, 2012-2021 Sources: CoStar; HR&A Advisors
These sales were concentrated along the primary commercial corridors within central Santa Monica and along the coast. This is further illustrated in Figure 10 below. $5.5B
$610M
$1.6B
$1.4B
Office Retail Multi-Family Other
15%
18%
7%
60%

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 17 Figure 10: Map of Commercial & Multi-family Sales $8 million or More, 2012-2021 Sources: CoStar; HR&A Advisors

SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES & CONDOS
Drawing from Multiple Listing Services, we assembled and analyzed data on qualifying singlefamily and condo property sales between 2012-2021. Over that period, there were 52 singlefamily and condo sales, representing $595M in sales value. These property sales varied across the timeline, subject to changing economic conditions over the period. This is illustrated in the table below:

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 18 Figure 11: Single-Family & Condo Sales, 2012-2021
Year
Number of Sales
$8 million or
More
Total Sales
2012 4 $40M
2013 4 $39.8M
2014 4 $52M
2015 4 $52.6
2016 3 $37.8M
2017 9 $83.2M
2018 5 $50.3M
2019 7 $80.2M
2020 6 $52.5M
2021 6 $107M
Total 52 $595M
Sources: Multiple Listing Service; HR&A Advisors
Over 90 percent of the qualifying sales between 2012-2021 were single-family homes, as only four qualifying transactions over that period were condominium sales. These sales are heavily concentrated in the far northwest corner of the City with other properties scattered along the coast.

This distribution is further illustrated in the map in Figure 12 below.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 19 Figure 12: Map of Single-family Home & Condo Sales Over $8M 2012-2021 Sources: Multiple Listing Service; HR&A Advisors

REVENUE ESTIMATES AND VARIABILITY
Had these $9.8 billion on property sales been subject to the additional 5.0 percent real estate transfer tax rate resulting from the Ballot Measure, and holding all other circumstances constant, the City would have realized approximately $490 million in additional revenue from the proposed incremental new Tier 3 tax rate applicable to sales of $8.0 million or more. Using the distribution percentages in the Ballot Measure, as discussed above, this would have translated to annual average deposits of $10 million to the School Fund, and $39 million to the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund. The derivation of these estimates is shown in summary form in Figure 13 below. By way of comparison, the estimated annual average of $39 million estimated for the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund is about 2.7 times the amount of revenue deposited into the former Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency’s Low & Moderate Income Housing Fund (i.e., from 20% set-aside from annual property tax increment) during the final two years before California’s system of redevelopment was dismantled in 2012, per information provided by City staff.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 20 Figure 13: Summary of Revenue Generated From Proposed Tier 3 Tax Rate Summary
Total Sum of Sales Price (2012-21) $9,803,504,360
Total Potential Fiscal Revenues (2012-21) $490,175,218
Average Year Total 5% Tax Allocated Funds $49,017,522

In an Average Year (5% Tax Allocated Funds)
School Fund $10,000,000
Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund $39,017,522 Source: CoStar, Multiple Listing Service, HR&A Advisors In any given year, the tax revenues derived from the Ballot Measure would be subject to significant year-to-year variability based on the number and scale of transactions. Based on review of historic data, qualifying property sales would have varied from a low of $318 million (2014) to a high of $2.5 billion (2016), translating to a low of $16.0 million to a high of $123.4 million in potential tax revenues from the additional 5.0 percent tax rate. This reflects significant variation of market conditions and circumstances across the period, which included recovery from the Great Recession, an accelerating economy and real estate market through 2019, and the volatile economic conditions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in early 2020. It also reflects the lumpiness of individual large-scale transactions in any particular year. This variability in transaction volume and tax revenue is depicted in Figure 14 below.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 21 Figure 14: Relationship between City Sales Transactions and Additive Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenues Between 2012-2021
Sources: CoStar, Multiple Listing Service; City of Santa Monica; HR&A Advisors

FUND ALLOCATIONS
As noted above, had the Ballot Measure’s Tier 3 real estate transfer tax rate been in effect between 2012 and 2021 on sales of $8 million or more, approximately $490 million in total tax revenues would have been generated. Of this total $120 million would have gone to the School Fund, and $370 million for the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund. Here again, the allocated funding would shift year-to-year in response to economic conditions and the number of qualifying sales transactions each year. This dynamic is illustrated in Figure 15 below:
$0M
$20M
$40M
$60M
$80M
$100M
$120M
$140M
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Number of Transactions
Projected Tax Revenues
Number of Transactions Projected Tax Revenues

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 22 Figure 15: Estimated Fund Allocations From Ballot Measure Tax Revenues, 2012-2021 Year
Number of
Qualifying
Sales
Sum of
Sales Prices
Potential
Revenue from
Ballot Measure
5% Tax Rate to
Allocated Funds
School Fund
Revenue
Homelessness
Prevention and
Affordable Housing
Fund
2012 22 $547M $27.4M $10M $17.4M
2013 23 $731M $36.6M $10M $26.6M
2014 15 $319M $15.9M $10M $5.9M
2015 34 $1.1B $54.3M $10.9M $43.4M
2016 42 $2.5B $123.4M $24.7M $98.7M
2017 32 $1.1B $56.3M $11.3M $45M
2018 32 $1.3B $63.1M $12.6M $50.4M
2019 30 $1.1B $55.2M $11M $44.2M
2020 26 $549M $27.4M $10M $17.4M
2021 27 $610M $30.5M $10M $20.5M
Total 286 $9.8B $490M $120M $370M
Sources: CoStar, Multiple Listing Service; Ballot Measure; HR&A Advisors

ILLUSTRATIVE PROFILE OF BALLOT MEASURE EXPENDITURES
As noted above, decisions about how to spend tax revenue collected from a successful Ballot Measure will be up to the City Council, based on recommendations from a Resident Oversight Committee. Therefore, it is not possible to specify or estimate the types of “impacts” from the Ballot Measure, like the “impact" examples listed in the Election Code. However, drawing on the revenue estimates from the previous memo section, and historic expenditure data for City programs that appear to be similar to the allowable expenditures from the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund, makes it is possible to present an illustrative example about how the Ballot Measure’s new tax revenue resources could enhance such expenditures in the future. The following analysis presents potential additional spending distributions for a single year based on actual City program expenditures for FY 2020-21, and an estimate of steady-state, on-going housing production expenditures without unusual one-time impacts in recent years, which generally align with the Fund allocations in the Ballot Measure.

Based on analysis developed by City staff at HR&A’s request, the City dedicated approximately $13.3 million to homelessness prevention programs and services and affordable housing unit production, including emergency income assistance, affordable housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and development, and tenant preservation programming, including City staff administrative costs, using resources from the General Fund, Measure GSH, developer in-lieu fee payments, and a series of state and federal funding sources, some of which are one-time funds allocated to help mitigate impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and would not recur annually in the future. The above estimated annual average of about $39 million of new funding from a successful Ballot Measure would increase expenditures devoted to homelessness prevention and affordable housing programs and administration by 293 percent.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 23 For illustration purposes only, our analysis of new Ballot Measure expenditures assumes the following allocations:
• Administration: 6%
• Emergency income assistance: 30%
• Acquisition, rehabilitation, and development of affordable housing: 50% • Tenancy preservation and a reserve for other homelessness prevention programming: 14% HR&A and City financial and program staff made a rough estimate of how existing City expenditures for homeless prevention and housing production in FY 2020-21 (the most recent audited year) align with the allowable expenditure allocations in the Ballot Measure’s Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund. This distribution of $13.3 million is shown in Figure 16 and is compared with the hypothetical Ballot Measure allocations of the estimated annual average of $39 million in Tier 3 tax revenues, in the right-hand column, assuming those revenues were to be spent on the same existing programs. This comparison shows that the Ballot Measure revenues would represent a 293 percent overall funding increase, although therewould be differences by category (e.g., a smaller incremental addition for Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Development of Affordable Housing relative to the scale of incremental addition for Emergency Income Assistance and Tenancy Preservation and a doubling of the amount for Administration).

This dramatic increase in potential funding dedicated to homelessness prevention and affordable housing would increase the scale at which the City can support related program expenditures. While translating new expenditures to potential program impact increases in all categories cannot be estimated at this time, rough we can estimates how new funding might translate into a few specific outcomes for affordable housing unit production. For example, given the array of funding sources currently available to the City and historic development cost trends, the City spends, on average, $262,913 for land acquisition, predevelopment and closing the construction financing gap to produce a new affordable housing unit on land acquired from a private owner, and when LowIncome Housing Tax Credits and other public and bank financing sources are available. Therefore, with an additional $19.5 million in potential annual funding from the Ballot Measure’s 5% tax rate, the new funding could result in the creation of about 74 additional affordable units annually, if every dollar in this Fund category were allocated towards new affordable housing development on land acquired from a private party at market rate, and assuming the non-City resources remain available.

If these funds were, instead, applied to affordable housing development on City-owned land, in which case only the average cost per unit for pre-development and closing the construction gap might apply ($106,768), then about 182 units could be produced annually with the same $19.5 million, assuming once again, that all the other tax credit and other financing sources would also be available.

Similarly, at an average cost estimate from City staff of $535,110 per unit for affordable housing unit acquisition and rehabilitation, the same additional $19.5 million from the Ballot Measure could lead to the creation of approximately 36 new affordable units annually.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 24 Figure 16: Illustrative Ballot Measure Expenditure Allocations Existing Expenditure
Category
Funding Source Existing
Expenditure
Amount
(FY2020-21
Actuals)*
% Illustrative
Additional
Expenditures
from the Ballot
Measure
(annual
average)
%
Administration
Homeless
Initiatives Staffing
Housing Division
General Fund $2.4M 18% $2.3M 6%
Emergency Income
Assistance
HHSD Flex Funds
POD Program
General Fund
Measure GSH (Santa
Monica Sales Tax
Measure)
$2.1M 16% $11.7M 30%
Acquisition, Rehabilitation,
and Development of
Affordable Housing*

Affordable Housing
Linkage Fees
AHPP In-lieu Fees
Measure GSH
TORCA Fund
Loan Repayments
$7.5M 56% $19.5M 50%
Programs to Preserve
Tenancy
LAFLA - General
Community Legal
Services
St. Joseph Center
- Retention
Program
Step-Up On
Second –
Sanctuary
Tenant Counseling
General Fund
Local Fund Returns
$1.3M 10% $5.5M 14%
Total $13.3M 100% $39.0M 100%
* Actual affordable housing production expenditures were minimal during FY 2020-21 due to budget reallocations decisions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic impacts on the City budget. They were unusually high in FY 2018- 19 and FY 2019-20, due to one-time proceeds from winding down the former Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency. The included $7.5 million value, therefore, represents City staff’s best estimate of average annual on-going expenditures from the indicated revenue sources.

Sources: City of Santa Monica; Ballot Measure; HR&A Advisors However, pursuant to the Ballot Measure, the City Council may choose, after receiving recommendations from the Resident Oversight Committee, to allocate funding to such programs differently and/or to allocate funds to new programs and initiatives that do not currently exist in the City (e.g., a Master Leasing strategy to restrict rents for units occupied by lower-income households in existing market rate apartment buildings; a new tenant income or rent subsidy program to address the adverse impacts of an unusually high recent annual rent adjustment in units subject to the City’s Rent Control Law; a new and improved version of the former Tenant Ownership

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 25 Rights Charter Amendment program that could provide homeownership and wealth accumulation opportunities to low- and moderate-income households).

In addition to the distributions to the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund, the Ballot Measure will also dedicate the first tranche of new revenue to the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, or a Santa Monica-only successor School District. Since the average annual projection of new tax revenue from the Ballot Measure is just under $50 million, the applicable School District allocation would be $10 million annually. And as noted above, all decisions about how that contribution to K-12 public education would be utilized are within the purview of the separately elected Board of Education. We note, based on HR&A’s familiarity with SMMUSD’s budget, that about 86 percent of it is devoted to staffing, including salaries and benefits for a wide range of academic and student support services and administration. And, considering the significant complexity of K-12 public school financing in California, which has historically been at the low end of the spectrum of per-student spending among the states, additional funding would meet many needs. We also note that new revenues for SMMUSD generated by the Ballot Measure would continue a long history of very generous support for SMMUSD by the City, including (as of FY 2022- 23 estimates9) approximately $10.3 million from an annual contract for services to youth and other uses, and $17.2 million from two previous revenue raising ballot measures (Measures Y and GSH for sales tax increases) which, like the Ballot Measure, share tax revenue between the City and SMMUSD. The City’s existing contracts and other agreements with SMMUSD for use of City funds may need to be amended, if the Ballot Measure were to pass.

BALLOT MEASURE REVENUE ESTIMATE AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION RISK

ASSESSMENT
Whether Ballot Measure tax revenue in future years will be realized to the same degree as presented above based on actual 2012-2021 real estate sales is unknowable. It is conceivable that even more revenue year-over-year or in total could be generated over the next 10 years. But the estimate of funding in future years that was based on the past 10 years could also be subject to a variety of future risks associated with circumstances outside the City’s control and market responses to the scale of the Tier 3 tax rate. In addition, there are also implementation risks to achieving the programmatic benefits these additional resources could provide. Both risk categories are discussed briefly below.

REVENUE ESTIMATE RISKS
Economic and Real Estate Market Cycle Variability
Because the tax revenue associated with the Ballot Measure is directly tied to the behavior of the general economy and the real estate market, both of which are cyclical and vary from year to year, annual tax revenue production will likely also vary. At the moment, the general economy is in 9 See generally FY 2022-23 SMMUSD budget presentation materials at:
https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/SB_Meetings/ViewMeeting.aspx?S=36030435&MID=12416.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 26 a very uncertain state, due to supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages and labor cost increases resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, resulting in historically high consumer and producer price inflation, including increases in home prices and rents, but also very large increases in construction costs. Furthermore, each real estate market product, (i.e., for-sale homes, apartments, and office, retail and industrial buildings) subject to future construction or investment in the City, moves through different market cycles in response to the state of the general economy, demographic growth and compositional change, and other factors.

In the analysis presented above for the 2012-2021 period, real estate transfer tax revenues were more modest in the recovery years following the Great Recession, and again, during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the years between these events, sales activity and tax revenues rose dramatically, in part because the economy and related real estate markets were stronger. Overall, between 2012 and 2021, annual qualifying property sales ranged from $318 million to $2.5 billion, generating a range of annual tax revenues from $16.0 million to $123.0 million. This degree of potential revenue variation makes any annual average of questionable value, and the volatility will make program planning and implementation utilizing new Ballot Measure funding difficult, as will be discussed below.

Tax Revenue Volatility Due to Uneven Number and Frequency of Large Transactions Particularly large transactions also have an important impact on annual real estate transfer tax revenue consistency. For example, in 2016, the year with the highest one-year tax revenue generation of any year between 2012 and 2021, there were four $100 million plus transactions.

However, in 2014, the lowest year of tax revenue generation during that period, there was only one sale transaction for $100 million or more. Years with a higher concentration of such significant property transfers, which can sometimes occur even in years of economic downturn, add to the high level of volatility of real estate transfer tax revenues. The future numbers and frequency of very high-value property sales in future years is unknown.

Development Project Financial Feasibility Impacts
The scale of the Ballot Measure’s Tier 3 tax rate would be a non-trivial additional cost to land sellers and land developers and could change each party’s decision-making about whether to sell land for development or undertake new development, including new dwelling units needed to meet the City’s elevated Regional Housing Needs Assessment. While these decisions will be propertyspecific, we summarize below general observations based on interviews with residential and commercial real estate brokers familiar with the City’s market, several developers and investors who have been active in the Santa Monica market, including some of the largest recent sale transactions in recent years, and other knowledgeable real estate industry professionals. 10 Among
the concerns raised were:
• Poor timing for a large tax increase on new development and property investment, considering the tenuous nature of the current economy which may be tipping into recession; 10 Interviewees included senior company officials with Compass Realty, CBRE, Tishman-Speyer, Cypress Equities, and attorneys at the Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal and Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis law firms.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 27 historically high inflation adversely affecting construction costs; significant declines in the stock market; and the Federal Reserve’s rapid increases in prime banking rates to combat inflation, which increase construction and permanent loan rates. • Yet one more requirement on new development and real estate investment transactions in a city with notoriously high barriers to entry, which could be the “final straw” that causes developers and investors to pursue their business elsewhere, at a moment when the City needs active participation by the private sector to meet its elevated housing production requirements.
• A form of double-taxation, considering all the other General Fund taxes imposed on commercial development in particular.
• Incentivizes property sellers to pursue any available tax avoidance tactic (see discussion below).
• Fails to recognize the large number of private properties in the City potentially available for new development that are owned by families with a low property tax basis and high sensitivity to generational wealth transfer, which could cause delays in selling land in the hope of a more favorable future regulatory climate.
• Lack of appreciation for the how the additional tax will impact financial return to a developer and its co-investors, particularly when a project is sold at the end of a multi-year holding period.
• Under-estimation of the length of time it may take land and home prices to re-adjust to the additional seller cost. And to the extent this results in lower prices, there will be a collateral impact on assessed values, which in turn impacts property tax revenue to the City. • Potential to change prevailing practice in which the real estate transfer tax is a seller obligation, to split the cost between buyer and seller, further complicating transaction negotiations.

As to potential impacts of the Ballot Measure on new apartment development, HR&A tested the impacts on a selection of prototypical new construction developments, which in Santa Monica include both market rate and a percentage of units affordable to low- and/or moderate-income households pursuant to the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program. Using a static pro forma modeling approach developed to guide development standard change recommendations to support policies in the City’s draft 6th Cycle Housing Element update, HR&A added the additional cost of the five percent real estate transfer tax as a cost of sale to measure change in developer profit margin for four apartment prototypes on commercial boulevards and two office building prototypes. The development prototypes and real estate market assumptions and Floor Area Ratio and building height assumptions used in the modeling are based on HR&A’s December 8, 2021 analysis, which was prior to the most recent round of negotiations with the California Housing and Community Development Department. All tested development prototypes include a ground floor retail component , subterranean parking, and either apartments or office space on the upper floors.

Market assumptions were sourced from HR&A’s market research using industry-accepted data sources as of the date of the analysis, and were vetted by local developers and other real estate industry stakeholders. The analysis uses developer profit margin (developer profit divided by total

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 28 project value) as the investment return threshold to evaluate financial feasibility. Development prototypes with greater than or equal to a 12.5 percent profit margin are considered “likely to develop,” meaning a developer is likely to pursue the project. Development prototypes with less than 12.5 percent profit margin are considered “marginally likely to develop” or “unlikely to develop,” depending on how far below the 12.5 percent threshold the profit margin falls. The analysis results are summarized in Figure 17 on the following page.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) Figure 17: Ballot Measure Tax Rate Impact on Developer Profit Margin for Four Prototypical and Two Office Developments in Santa Monica Zoning Category ---> Mixed Use
Boulevard Low
Mixed Use
Boulevard
Bergamot Transit
Village
Bergamot Transit
Village
Downtown
Community Plan
Downtown
Community
Plan
Apartments Apartments Apartments Office Apartments Office

DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES
FAR 2.25 2.75 2.50 2.50 2.75 2.75
Building Height 52 ft. 52 ft. 52 ft. 52 ft. 52 ft. 52 ft.

Number of Stories 4 stories 4 stories 4 stories 4 stories 4 stories 4 stories Total Units 32 units 42 units 81 units 43 units
Market Rate 27 units 36 units 69 units 37 units
Affordable (15%)1 5 units 6 units 12 units 6 units
Average Unit Size 704 SF 704 SF 704 SF 704 SF
Office GSF 25,000 SF 33,000 SF
Retail GSF 9,000 SF 9,000 SF 21,000 SF 21,000 SF 9,000 SF 9,000 SF Total GSF 34,000 SF 43,000 SF 88,000 SF 90,000 SF 43,000 SF 42,000 SF Lot Area (SF) 15,000 SF 15,000 SF 35,000 SF 35,000 SF 15,000 SF 15,000 SF

PROJECT RETURNS
Net Operating Income $1,253,000 $1,579,000 $3,091,000 $3,735,000 $1,575,000 $1,923,000 Capitalization Rate 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 4.8% 4.2% 4.8%
Project Value $29,632,000 $37,788,000 $73,424,000 $78,476,000 $38,354,000 $40,643,000 Total Development Cost ($23,200,000) ($30,268,000) ($59,259,000) ($62,129,000) ($28,994,000) ($33,376,000) Profit $6,432,000 $7,520,000 $14,166,000 $16,347,000 $9,360,000 $7,267,000 Developer Profit Margin 21.7% 19.9% 19.3% 20.8% 24.4% 17.9% Feasible? (>12.5% Profit) LIKELY TO DEVELOP LIKELY TO DEVELOP LIKELY TO DEVELOP LIKELY TO DEVELOP LIKELY TO DEVELOP LIKELY TO

DEVELOP

TAX MEASURE SENSITIVITY

RETURNS
Real Estate Transfer Tax (5%) ($1,482,000) ($1,889,000) ($3,671,000) ($3,924,000) ($1,918,000) ($2,032,000) Profit $4,951,000 $5,631,000 $10,494,000 $12,424,000 $7,442,000 $5,235,000 Developer Profit Margin 16.7% 14.9% 14.3% 15.8% 19.4% 12.9% Feasible? (>12.5% Profit) LIKELY TO DEVELOP LIKELY TO DEVELOP LIKELY TO DEVELOP LIKELY TO DEVELOP LIKELY TO DEVELOP LIKELY TO

DEVELOP

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) The preceding analysis shows that in each case, the additional seller cost associated with the Ballot Measure’s Tier 3 tax rate would add between $1.5 million and $3.9 million to the “cost of sale” and cause a reduction in developer profit margin to a point much closer to, although not below, the stated threshold that would threaten financial feasibility. It should also be noted that the City has proposed some additional zoning flexibilities since HR&A’s last round of feasibility testing was completed, plus use of the State Density Bonus Law, which could have more positive impacts on prototype feasibility even with the additional Tier 3 tax rate, depending on how additional costs of construction associated with these flexibilities trade off against achievable net operating income from additional market rate units.

We acknowledge that the foregoing is only a general estimate of the Ballot Measure’s potential impact on a sample of new development projects, and only in the year that the prototype first achieves stabilized occupancy. It does not reflect the impact of the Tier 3 tax rate using other standard measures of investment return including return on developer and co-investor equity, Internal Rate of Return over a holding period, or changes in after-tax impacts. Such analysis is beyond the scope of this memorandum.

Economic and Fiscal Impacts Resulting from Any Reductions in Development or Investment Activity Downward trends in real estate transactions—either as a result of difficult economic conditions or because of adverse impacts tied to the Ballot Measure’s Tier 3 tax rate—could cause collateral impacts on other sources of City tax revenues associated with commercial development in particular, such as reductions in property taxes and motor vehicle license fee in-lieu property taxes, parking tax, sales tax, business license tax, utility user’s tax and Transient Occupancy tax. Any such collateral impacts would also extend to SMMUSD and Santa Monica College which also receives shares of local property tax revenues. Any reductions in development and/or investment activity could also cause reductions in jobs and total economic output in the City’s economy. On the other hand, new programs and development activity resulting directly from new Ballot Measure tax revenue expenditures would generate new jobs and economic activity, but in different categories and numbers; there would not likely be any associated increases in City tax revenues, other than those associated with new household spending.

Increase in Tax Avoidance Behavior
Also related to the high cost of the Ballot Measure’s Tier 3 tax rate, property sellers may be incentivized to pursue tactics to reduce the impact of the new tax rate or seek to avoid it altogether.

This may include, for example, lowering sale prices that would otherwise be set close to the qualifying price of $8.0 million to avoid paying the Tier 3 tax rate. Between 2012-2021, 15 property sales of commercial or residential properties representing $6.1 million in estimated City tax revenue, fell between $8.0 and $8.4 million. Considering that the proposed Tier 3 tax rate increment of $50/$1,000 would translate to a tax of $400,000 to $420,000 could motivate the seller to lower the price to slightly below $8.0 million. This possibility becomes more likely over time

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 31 because the Ballot Measure’s $8.0 million threshold for the Tier 3 tax rate is not indexed for inflation. Therefore, sale prices that would fall below $8.0 million today will move up to that threshold over time as values appreciate due to general price inflation and the behavior of the real estate market.

Sellers may elect to pursue more aggressively one or more of the statutory exemptions from paying real estate transfer tax as provided under state law and County ordinance. As described above, the City is not in the chain of communication between escrow agents the County Registrar-Recorder prior to the County’s distribution to the City of its share of real estate transfer tax revenue. And it is not clear how much the County scrutinizes claimed exemptions. The higher the sale price, and hence the higher the potential tax liability, the more incentive there will be for sellers to pursue tax avoidance tactics.

Potential Litigation
Here again, the relatively large scale of the tax amount resulting from the Ballot Measure’s Tier 3 tax rate could cause some sellers and their legal counsel to explore theories to challenge the application of the Ballot Measure, or the City’s method of enforcement, for individual properties or classes of similarly situated properties. Although City staff report no history of litigation involving the current tax rates, and HR&A is not qualified to identify specific legal theories that might be pursued, we note this only as another possible response from some sellers facing much larger tax liability that could reduce additional real estate transfer tax revenues over time, due to legal process delays or victories.

IMPLEMENTATION RISKS
Compliance, Implementation, and Enforcement Staffing Needs At present, the City is facing staffing challenges, with many positions open across departments.

Current City staff are unlikely to capably manage the scale of new and expanding homelessness prevention and affordable housing programming tied to the potentially large increase in revenues from the Ballot Measure. To effectively deploy these funds, the City will need to hire additional staff to manage the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund, the associated programming, and their administration. As current staff are stretched thin, the City will need to hire new staff to:
• Support housing production efforts;
• Manage receipt of new revenues;
• Manage disbursement of new expenditures;
• Administer new and expanding programming;
• Provide support for the Resident Oversight Committee; • Support auditing efforts along with Moss Adams;
• Support additional financial reporting requests from the Finance Department associated with homelessness prevention and affordable housing revenues and expenditures; and • Other related tasks and roles across City departments as necessary.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 32 Furthermore, continuous programming will require consistent staff support. Given the fluctuations in real estate property transfers discussed above, there may be tension between the uneven flow of new annual revenues generated from the Ballot Measure and a need for stable funding to budget for the additional staff support on an ongoing basis to use the new funds for their intended purposes.

Eligibility Requirements Constrain Disbursement
Some of the dedicated programming associated with the Ballot Measure’s funding allocations will require criteria and means testing to determine who is eligible to receive assistance. Should criteria, eligibility, or disbursement planning be defined too rigidly, that could prevent funds from flowing to residents when they need it most. For example, should there be another economic or other systemic shock in the future (e.g., from natural, such as an earthquake or climate event, or human causes) the programs associated with Ballot Measure expenditures must be flexible enough to disburse funds to those who are suddenly facing difficult circumstances and may not be able to prove what income category they fall into to qualify for funding associated with such categories. A more flexible approach to expending tax revenue resources allows City staff to disburse funds directly to those most affected by sudden shocks, regardless of their strict adherence to particular income categories.

Concerns Regarding Coordination of Expenditure Decisions and Operation of the Residents Committee Under the Ballot Measure’s current language, the Resident Oversight Committee will make expenditure recommendations to City Council. It is unclear whether or how this decision-making process will be coordinated with the City’s annual budgeting process. City staff expressed concern that this process may interfere with existing City Council-approved authority and guidelines, potentially inhibiting the flexibility and speed at which City staff currently makes key funding decisions. Such considerations are particularly important when it comes to funding affordable housing, as land or buildings may only be available for brief periods and the City must be positioned to act quickly. Similarly, the ability of affordable housing organizations to successfully acquire land and buildings may be hindered if funding goes through an extended discretionary process.

Additionally, the City is currently working to decrease the number of active boards and commissions.

Not only do boards and commissions require dedicated funding, resources, and staffing, the City Council has reportedly experienced recent difficulty in finding residents willing to serve on such board and committees. Not only will the City need to identify and approve 11 residents for the Committee tied to the Ballot Measure, but these residents must fit within specific income brackets, housing circumstances, life experiences, and professional backgrounds. Should the City be unable to impanel the necessary 11 residents for the Committee, there are concerns that this may delay progress on making recommendations for City Council decision making about the most useful and efficient use of new tax revenues derived from the Ballot Measure.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Santa Monica Transfer Tax Ballot Measure | 33

CONCLUSION
If voters approve the Ballot Measure as proposed, new annual tax revenues of about $49 million per year could result, based on the pattern of sales of $8 million or more between 2012 and 2021.

Depending on specific future spending recommendations by the Ballot Measure’s Resident Oversight Committee, and approval or modification of the those recommendations by the City Council within the revenue allocation framework contained in the Ballot Measure, the new tax revenues could make significant progress in addressing the needs of homeless persons, rent-burdened low-income existing households, and a need for additional dwelling units affordable to low- and moderateincome households, as the Ballot Measure’s proponents suggest. But because of the scale of Tier 3 tax rate included in the Ballot Measure, and other reasons discussed above, there are reasons to be cautious about whether the scale of estimated new tax revenue predicated on previous sales over the past 10 years would materialize to the same degree year over year in the future. And, also for reasons described above, caution is warranted about the City’s ability and speed to deliver effective programs and new affordable units, to the degree that the Residents Oversight Committee and City Council may recommend.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) The proposed municipal code amendment reads as follows:

SECTION I: TITLE
,, !( t (: t I Y t L, JU1cL or .... ,.,1 CI T. I •-
I ( CLER I<-
2022 HAR l o PH f: 5 2
SANTA MONICA. CJ\LIF.

This measure may be known and referred to as the "Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools" Ballot Measure.

SECTION II: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
The People of the City of Santa Monica find as follows:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") estimates in its Community Housing Assessment Data that nearly one out of every five Santa Monica renter households-our neighbors in our City-are both low income and suffer "severe cost burden." This means they pay more than half of their limited incomes as rent and utilities. HUD further estimates that an additional close to one out of every ten Santa Monica renter households are both low income and "rent burdened"-that is, pay more than 30 percent and up to 50 percent of their incomes as rent and utilities.

The extreme rent burdens faced by so many of our low income neighbors exacerbates the homelessness crisis facing Santa Monica. Low income household members who are severely rent burdened are potentially just one financial shock away from homelessness. The most recent pre-pandemic homeless count for Los Angeles County, conducted in January 2020, found that roughly two out of every five unsheltered adults were both homeless for the first time and cited economic hardship as the cause.

Even when homelessness is averted, the extreme rent burdens faced by so many of our low income neighbors forces them to spend much less on food, on health care, and on their children's development than they would if they had affordable rents. This in turn contributes to the educational achievement gap experienced by some of our community's children.

It is inconsistent with our values as Santa Monicans to allow so many of our neighbors to live in these extremely difficult and precarious conditions, especially when they are seniors, children, and persons facing physical and mental challenges.

The Santa Monica Preserve Our Diversity pilot programs have demonstrated that a local rent subsidy to low income seniors in rent-controlled apartments is a highly cost-effective way to eliminate rent burden, prevent homelessness, and allow our low income senior neighbors to age in place with dignity. Extension of these pilot programs to other rent-burdened low income households-including those with members who are seniors, children, or persons facing physical and mental challenges-would also be a cost-effective way to eliminate rent burden, prevent homelessness, and to allow all of our low income neighbors to live in dignity.

Temporary emergency rent subsidies, legal assistance, and code enforcement also are cost-effective interventions to prevent homelessness or displacement of our low income neighbors.
1 Appendix A: Ballot Measure Text

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

4.90.010 Creation of Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund and School Fund.
(a) The City shall create within the Housing Trust Fund a new Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund.
(b) The City shall also create a new School Fund.
(c) On an annual basis, the City shall deposit into the Homelessness and Affordable Housing Fund and the School Fund all funds collected pursuant to the Third Tier Tax Rate imposed by Section 6.96.020(c) that are in excess of six dollars for each one thousand dollars of consideration or property value, or fractional part thereof as follows:
(i) The first $10 million of funds to the School Fund;
(ii) The next $40 million of funds to the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund; and
(iii) Any funds above $50 million shall be deposited 20 percent to the Schools Fund and 80 percent to the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund.

4.90.020 School Fund.
(a) The City shall provide annually to the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD), the funds in the School Fund. The City is authorized to establish an agreement with SMMUSD to provide for this contribution for use for school purposes by the SMMUSD. (b) In the event of a unification of Malibu schools, the school district that serves residents of the City of Santa Monica shall receive all of the funds referenced in subdivision (a) of this section. In the event of a unification of Malibu schools, any school district that is located outside of Santa Monica is not entitled to any portion of these funds, regardless whether that district offers enrollment to any students that reside in Santa Monica. The City is authorized to modify any agreement(s) regarding the distribution of the funds under subdivision (a) of this section to direct the funds to the appropriate Santa Monica school district. (c) In enacting this Initiative, it is the intent of the voters that any funds allocated to the SMMUSD or any future school district pursuant to this section should be additional to, and not a replacement of any funds the City otherwise provides to the school district, including any funds provided according to existing agreements or in accordance with prior advisory measures regarding city funding for public education.

4.90.030 Expenditure of Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Funds. (a) No more than six percent of the funds deposited into the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund annually may be used for compliance, implementation, and 3 8.A.e
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) acquisition of low rent housing projects in the City of Santa Monica by public agencies, that development, construction, or acquisition is hereby deemed authorized by the People of Santa Monica, having been duly approved by a majority of qualified electors of the City of Santa Monica, and with such authorization constituting the approval required by Article XXXIV of the California Constitution. The development, construction, and/or acquisition of low rent housing units authorized by this section shall be in addition to any other authorization of the development, construction, and/or acquisition of such housing by the voters of the City of Santa Monica before or after adoption of this section. This Section in no way restricts or limits the City's authority to develop or assist in the development of housing that is not subject to Article XXXIV. This Section 4.90.070 shall be interpreted to maximize affordable housing production and acquisition. As used in this Section 4.90.070, the terms "public entity," "develop," "construct," "acquire," and "low rent housing projects" shall be interpreted in accordance with Article XXXIV of the California Constitution, California Health and Safety Code Section 37000 et seq., and any successor legislation thereto.

4.90.080 Definitions.
(a) "Extremely Low Income Households" shall have the same meaning as in Section 50 I 06 of the California Health and Safety Code.
(b) "Very Low Income Households" shall have the same meaning as in Section 50 I 05 of the California Health and Safety Code.
(c) "Low Income Households" shall mean Lower Income Households whose gross incomes exceed the maximum for Very Low Income Households. (d) "Lower Income Households" shall have the same meaning as in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.
(e) "Moderate Income Households" shall have the same meaning as the tenn "Persons and families of moderate income" as defined in Section 50093(b) of the California Health and Safety Code.

4.90.90 Severability.

If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Chapter or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter or any part thereof. The voters of the City of Santa Monica hereby declare that they would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION IV: AMENDMENT OF SANT A MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER

6.96 6

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) HR&A Advisors
Santa Monica RE Tax Measure Evaluation
7/18/22
ToSummary tal Potential Fiscal Revenues (2012-21) $548,996,244 Average Year Total to General Fund (0.6%) $5,882,103
Average Year Total 5% Tax Allocated Funds $49,017,522
In an average year (5% Tax Allocated Funds)
School Fund $10,000,000
Homeless/Aff Housing Fund $39,017,522
Year Number of Sales Sum of Sales Price
Potential Revenue from

5.6% Tax Rate 5% Tax Allocated Funds General Fund (0.6%) Revenue to School Fund Revenue to
Homeless/Affordable
Housing Fund
2012 22 $547,159,741.00 $30,640,945.50 $27,357,987.05 $3,282,958.45 $10,000,000.00 $17,357,987.05 2013 23 $731,363,864.00 $40,956,376.38 $36,568,193.20 $4,388,183.18 $10,000,000.00 $26,568,193.20 2014 15 $318,825,916.00 $17,854,251.30 $15,941,295.80 $1,912,955.50 $10,000,000.00 $5,941,295.80 2015 34 $1,085,685,348.00 $60,798,379.49 $54,284,267.40 $6,514,112.09 $10,856,853.48 $43,427,413.92 2016 42 $2,468,593,508.00 $138,241,236.45 $123,429,675.40 $14,811,561.05 $24,685,935.08 $98,743,740.32 2017 32 $1,126,216,337.00 $63,068,114.87 $56,310,816.85 $6,757,298.02 $11,262,163.37 $45,048,653.48 2018 35 $1,261,058,386.00 $70,619,269.62 $63,052,919.30 $7,566,350.32 $12,610,583.86 $50,442,335.44 2019 30 $1,104,928,520.00 $61,875,997.12 $55,246,426.00 $6,629,571.12 $11,049,285.20 $44,197,140.80 2020 26 $548,745,664.00 $30,729,757.18 $27,437,283.20 $3,292,473.98 $10,000,000.00 $17,437,283.20 2021 27 $610,927,076.00 $34,211,916.26 $30,546,353.80 $3,665,562.46 $10,000,000.00 $20,546,353.80 Total 286 $9,803,504,360.00 $548,996,244.16 $490,175,218.00 $58,821,026.16 $120,464,820.99 $369,710,397.01 Average 28.6 $980,350,436.00 $54,899,624.42 $49,017,521.80 $5,882,102.62 $12,046,482.10 $36,971,039.70 Year Number of Sales Sum of Sales Price
Potential Revenue from

5.6% Tax Rate 5% Tax Allocated Funds General Fund (0.6%) Revenue to School Fund Revenue to
Homeless/Affordable
Housing Fund
2012 18 $507,159,366.00 $28,400,924.50 $25,357,968.30 $3,042,956.20 $10,000,000.00 $15,357,968.30 2013 19 $691,573,864.00 $38,728,136.38 $34,578,693.20 $4,149,443.18 $10,000,000.00 $24,578,693.20 2014 11 $266,860,211.00 $14,944,171.82 $13,343,010.55 $1,601,161.27 $10,000,000.00 $3,343,010.55 2015 30 $1,033,022,848.00 $57,849,279.49 $51,651,142.40 $6,198,137.09 $10,330,228.48 $41,320,913.92 2016 39 $2,430,793,508.00 $136,124,436.45 $121,539,675.40 $14,584,761.05 $24,307,935.08 $97,231,740.32 2017 23 $1,042,978,837.00 $58,406,814.87 $52,148,941.85 $6,257,873.02 $10,429,788.37 $41,719,153.48 2018 30 $1,210,708,386.00 $67,799,669.62 $60,535,419.30 $7,264,250.32 $12,107,083.86 $48,428,335.44 2019 23 $1,024,768,520.00 $57,387,037.12 $51,238,426.00 $6,148,611.12 $10,247,685.20 $40,990,740.80 2020 20 $496,279,664.00 $27,791,661.18 $24,813,983.20 $2,977,677.98 $10,000,000.00 $14,813,983.20 2021 21 $504,059,005.00 $28,227,304.28 $25,202,950.25 $3,024,354.03 $10,000,000.00 $15,202,950.25 Total 234 $9,208,204,209.00 $515,659,435.70 $460,410,210.45 $55,249,225.25 $117,422,720.99 $342,987,489.46 Average 23.4 $920,820,420.90 $51,565,943.57 $46,041,021.05 $5,524,922.53 $11,742,272.10 $34,298,748.95 Year Number of Sales Sum of Sales Price
Potential Revenue from

5.6% Tax Rate 5% Tax Allocated Funds General Fund (0.6%) Revenue to School Fund Revenue to
Homeless/Affordable
Housing Fund
2012 4 $40,000,375.00 $2,240,021.00 $2,000,018.75 $240,002.25 $2,000,018.75 $0.00 2013 4 $39,790,000.00 $2,228,240.00 $1,989,500.00 $238,740.00 $1,989,500.00 $0.00 2014 4 $51,965,705.00 $2,910,079.48 $2,598,285.25 $311,794.23 $2,598,285.25 $0.00 2015 4 $52,662,500.00 $2,949,100.00 $2,633,125.00 $315,975.00 $2,633,125.00 $0.00 2016 3 $37,800,000.00 $2,116,800.00 $1,890,000.00 $226,800.00 $1,890,000.00 $0.00 2017 9 $83,237,500.00 $4,661,300.00 $4,161,875.00 $499,425.00 $4,161,875.00 $0.00 2018 5 $50,350,000.00 $2,819,600.00 $2,517,500.00 $302,100.00 $2,517,500.00 $0.00 2019 7 $80,160,000.00 $4,488,960.00 $4,008,000.00 $480,960.00 $4,008,000.00 $0.00 2020 6 $52,466,000.00 $2,938,096.00 $2,623,300.00 $314,796.00 $2,623,300.00 $0.00 2021 6 $106,868,071.00 $5,984,611.98 $5,343,403.55 $641,208.43 $5,343,403.55 $0.00 Total 52 $595,300,151.00 $33,336,808.46 $29,765,007.55 $3,571,800.91 $29,765,007.55 $0.00 Average 5.2 $59,530,015.10 $3,333,680.85 $2,976,500.76 $357,180.09 $2,976,500.76 $0.00 Year Number of Sales Sum of Sales Price
Potential Revenue from

5.6% Tax Rate 5% Tax Allocated Funds General Fund (0.6%) Average 5% Tax
Allocated Funds per Year
Average General Fund
Allocation per Year
Office 100 $5,535,713,366.00 $309,999,948.50 $276,785,668.30 $33,214,280.20 $27,678,566.83 $3,321,428.02 Retail 28 $610,423,304.00 $34,183,705.02 $30,521,165.20 $3,662,539.82 $3,052,116.52 $366,253.98 Multi-Family 72 $1,640,355,712.00 $91,859,919.87 $82,017,785.60 $9,842,134.27 $8,201,778.56 $984,213.43 Single-Family 48 $548,800,151.00 $30,732,808.46 $27,440,007.55 $3,292,800.91 $2,744,000.76 $329,280.09 Condo 4 $46,500,000.00 $2,604,000.00 $2,325,000.00 $279,000.00 $232,500.00 $27,900.00 Other 34 $1,421,711,827.00 $79,615,862.31 $71,085,591.35 $8,530,270.96 $7,108,559.14 $853,027.10 Total 286 $9,803,504,360.00 $548,996,244.16 $490,175,218.00 $58,821,026.16 $49,017,521.80 $5,882,102.62 Average 28.6 $980,350,436.00 $54,899,624.42 $49,017,521.80 $5,882,102.62 $4,901,752.18 $588,210.26 Santa Monica Commercial & Multi-family Property Sales 2012-2021 Santa Monica Single-Family Home & Condo Sales 2012-2021 Santa Monica Total Property Sales 2012-2021
Santa Monica Property Transfers by Use
Appendix B: Data Summary For Santa Monica Sales of $8 Million Or More, 2012-2021

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition)

HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION
Funding Source 22-23(Budget) 21-22 (Budget) 20-21(Actuals) 19-20 (Actuals) 18-19 (Actuals) 17-18 (Budget) 16-17 (Budget) 15-16 (Actuals) 14-15 (Actuals) 13-14 (Actuals) Homeless Initiatives Staffing General Fund 827,389 797,159 538,013 738,379 620,582 601,965 583,906 566,388 549,397 532,915 Housing Division General Fund 1,587,411 1,514,067 1,808,939 1,978,602 1,772,312 2,045,469 1,678,772 1,664,189 1,457,675 1,429,840 Housing Authority (2020-23 pulls out HCV, CoC, EHV (below), 13-20 total division with programs included)
Federal funding (Section 8, HOME), other restricted housing funds from linkage fees, residual receipts) 2,726,347 2,092,228 2,037,682 22,280,381 19,046,101 20,162,245 18,164,465 16,609,620 16,564,587 17,150,696 HHSD Flex Funds General Fund 100,549 100,549 100,549 75,754 149,521 ARPA Emergency Assistance Federal ARPA funds 500,000 500,000 COVID Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) Federal ARPA funds, CDBG, HOME 3,121,314 CDBG Residential Rehab Federal CDBG - - - - 532,055 300,000 120,000 - - - Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) Program Federal 1,419,455 657,155 - POD Program Measure GSH, General Fund 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 135,874 124,067 - 300,000 - - - HSGP - Homelessness Prevention TOTAL
LAFLA - General Community Legal Services General Fund 514,288 514,288 506,149 506,149 506,149 496,161 487,203 479,219 479,219 410,118 St. Joseph Center - Retention Program (FY 2019-20 to Present) General Fund and Local Return Funds 620,463 606,914 580,717 611,104 St. Joseph Center - Family Self Sufficiency (Pre-FY 2019-20) General Fund 187,532 183,303 179,510 176,129 176,129 176,925 St. Joseph Center - Shelter Plus Care (Pre-FY 2019-20) General Fund 42,309 41,317 40,428 39,635 39,635 39,377 Step-Up On Second - Sanctuary General Fund 126,816 126,816 115,964 131,852 131,852 128,823 126,106 123,684 154,605 154,141 Housing Subsidies TOTAL (Section 8, CoC, HOME, VASH, RDA) Federal HUD funds: Section 8, Serial Inebriate Grant (all below) Housing Choice Voucher (includes VASH, PBV) (included in Hsg Auth amt- row 5- before 20-21) 19,257,521 19,506,134 18,951,949
Continuum of Care (CoC) (included in Hsg Auth amt- row 5- before 20-21) 3,506,959 3,506,959 3,253,093 HOME (Tenant-Based Rental Assistance/TBRA) 495,428 495,428 418,800 742,570 539,019 1,073,603 481,792 203,617 258,219 290,740 Sr Housing Voucher Program 113,000 113,000 143,972 122,527 135,338 296,848 350,000 206,104 255,261 203,683 Tenant counseling General Fund - 120,000 120,000 - - - - - - - TOTAL $ 33,795,626 $ 32,650,697 $ 33,697,141 $ 27,323,192 $ 23,786,837 $ 25,329,734 $ 22,512,182 $ 20,068,585 $ 19,934,727 $ 20,388,435 Appendix C: Inventory Of Existing City Programs That Align With Ballot Measure Fund Allocations, 2012-2021 Administration
Ongoing on emergency income assistance
Programs and servicesto preserve tenancies

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: 30 day transmittal and HRA Report [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Lisa Alexander <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 3:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council July 26 Agenda - Ballot Measures

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am a tax‐paying business owner in Santa Monica. I shop here, I support our local restaurants and I use our increasingly troubled parks. I urge the Council to place the measures described in Agenda Item 11B on the November ballot.  Due to economic damage caused by Covid‐19, the City needs additional revenue to deal with problems associated with public safety, after‐school programs for our kids and the restoration of the full operations of libraries; the measures described in 11B will help fill that gap.

In addition, as a member of the Board of Governors of the Santa Monica Boys and Girls Club, I am very concerned by the steep transfer tax provision of the competing measure described in Agenda Item 8A with no exemption for sale by a charitable organization. This would impact our Club’s options in planning for a new, state of the art facility to deliver quality programming to the children of our community and their families.

Please vote to place 11B on the November ballot!
Thank you,
Lisa
Lisa C. Alexander, Esq.

JAKLE, ALEXANDER & PATTON, LLP
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Main Line: (310) 395-6555
Direct Line: (310) 656-4310
Fax: (424) 238-6140
[email protected]
https://www.jaklelaw.com
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged.

Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message.

Item 8.A
07/26/22
1 of 8 Item 8.A
07/26/22

8.A.f
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniel Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Subject: Yes on 8A, No on 11A, No on 11B, Yes on 11D, No on 16D

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers, I urge you to consider the following for July 26th's Agenda Items:
8A ‐ Vote YES ‐ 10,000+ Santa Monica voters have said through the Citizens' Initiative that they want to tax extremely high‐value real estate in order to subsidize rent‐burdened, low‐income Santa Monicans to prevent homeless, ensure our community does not become economically gated, and to continue to guarantee high quality schools following Malibu unification. This measure is critical to establishing long term and substantial funding for deed restricted affordable housing and our school system.
11A ‐ Vote NO ‐ Removing the Personnel Board from the Charter will subject what ought to be non‐political work to the whims of a political Council. This was not the recommendation that the Personnel Board themselves brought forward, which sought only to allow greater participation from non‐resident community stakeholders on an oft understaffed commission. I do not think risking the politicization of the Personnel Board is wise and encourage you to vote against the staff recommendation as written.
11B ‐ Vote NO ‐ This measure is in direct competition with the Citizens' Initiative which 10,000+ Santa Monica residents have indicated their support for as indicated by the poison pill which would allow for this measure to win out with one more vote, even if both measures get majority support. As written, there are too many carve outs and, my main concern, too few rules about how the funds would be spent. We need a dedicated stream of funding for affordable housing construction; this measure simply adds to our General Fund, where the advisory measure could be entirely ignored by future Councils.
11D ‐ Vote YES ‐ While I am disappointed Council did not work with their sister body, the duly (and independently!) elected Rent Control Board and adopt their full requested Charter Amendment, the proposed measure will still help Santa Monica renters now and in the future. We are a city that is majority renter; we must support our renters in order to prevent our community from becoming economically gated. 16D ‐ Vote NO ‐ The measure proposed in 16D shows a basic lack of understanding of how the market economy works and masks anti‐housing policies in the language of social justice. As someone who volunteers and leads in diversity, equity, and inclusion‐oriented organizations, this is incredibly disappointing and disturbing. I am pro‐labor; I support collective bargaining and higher minimum wages for workers. This proposal, however, will block economic feasibility for any new development projects... benefitting the very landlord Councilmembers bringing this proposal forward. No projects equates to no construction jobs. Let's be realistic about what the market can bear.

Thank you for your consideration,
Dan
Daniel Hall
Santa Monica Mid‐City Resident
Item 8.A
07/26/22
2 of 8 Item 8.A
07/26/22

8.A.f
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 2 Pronouns: he/him
Item 8.A
07/26/22
3 of 8 Item 8.A
07/26/22

8.A.f
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Patricia Hoffman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 7:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No on 11B and 16D, Yes on 8A and 11D

EXTERNAL
July 26
Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmembers:

I am updating my letter to you regarding the July 12 agenda to make it appropriate for the July 26 agenda. The issues remain the same but the item numbers have changed.

I again want to add my voice to the chorus of hundreds who have asked that you vote against putting Item 11B on the ballot. Please vote no on 11B. 11B is in direct competition with and could kill the people’s initiative in 8A. I also hope that you do not move forward with Item 16D.

It is too late to adequately study the consequences, both intended and unintended, of this item.

As a reminder, more than 10,000 Santa Monica voters have said that they want to tax extremely high-value real estate in order to subsidize rent burdened low-income Santa Monicans to keep them from becoming homeless, to build more affordable housing for our local work force, and to continue to guarantee high quality schools even if Malibu takes its money and runs. I strongly support Item 8A. I know you will be voting yes on it but I hope you will do so enthusiastically and that you will enthusiastically support the measure since you will be helping so many of your constituents by doing so.

Right now you will also have the opportunity to help many of the tenants of Santa Monica by voting yes on Item 11D. You can also place a 3% cap on general adjustments to the maximum allowable rents, in addition to the other components of Item 11D.

You have a rare opportunity to be heroes to thousands of struggling Santa Monicans in this very scary moment of uncertainty. Please vote no on Item 11B and 16D. Please vote yes on Item 8A and Item 11D.

Thank you,
Patricia Hoffman.

Item 8.A
07/26/22
4 of 8 Item 8.A
07/26/22

8.A.f
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniel Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Subject: Yes on 8A, No on 11A, No on 11B, Yes on 11D, No on 16D

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers, I urge you to consider the following for July 26th's Agenda Items:
8A ‐ Vote YES ‐ 10,000+ Santa Monica voters have said through the Citizens' Initiative that they want to tax extremely high‐value real estate in order to subsidize rent‐burdened, low‐income Santa Monicans to prevent homeless, ensure our community does not become economically gated, and to continue to guarantee high quality schools following Malibu unification. This measure is critical to establishing long term and substantial funding for deed restricted affordable housing and our school system.
11A ‐ Vote NO ‐ Removing the Personnel Board from the Charter will subject what ought to be non‐political work to the whims of a political Council. This was not the recommendation that the Personnel Board themselves brought forward, which sought only to allow greater participation from non‐resident community stakeholders on an oft understaffed commission. I do not think risking the politicization of the Personnel Board is wise and encourage you to vote against the staff recommendation as written.
11B ‐ Vote NO ‐ This measure is in direct competition with the Citizens' Initiative which 10,000+ Santa Monica residents have indicated their support for as indicated by the poison pill which would allow for this measure to win out with one more vote, even if both measures get majority support. As written, there are too many carve outs and, my main concern, too few rules about how the funds would be spent. We need a dedicated stream of funding for affordable housing construction; this measure simply adds to our General Fund, where the advisory measure could be entirely ignored by future Councils.
11D ‐ Vote YES ‐ While I am disappointed Council did not work with their sister body, the duly (and independently!) elected Rent Control Board and adopt their full requested Charter Amendment, the proposed measure will still help Santa Monica renters now and in the future. We are a city that is majority renter; we must support our renters in order to prevent our community from becoming economically gated. 16D ‐ Vote NO ‐ The measure proposed in 16D shows a basic lack of understanding of how the market economy works and masks anti‐housing policies in the language of social justice. As someone who volunteers and leads in diversity, equity, and inclusion‐oriented organizations, this is incredibly disappointing and disturbing. I am pro‐labor; I support collective bargaining and higher minimum wages for workers. This proposal, however, will block economic feasibility for any new development projects... benefitting the very landlord Councilmembers bringing this proposal forward. No projects equates to no construction jobs. Let's be realistic about what the market can bear.

Thank you for your consideration,
Dan
Daniel Hall
Santa Monica Mid‐City Resident
Item 8.A
07/26/22
5 of 8 Item 8.A
07/26/22

8.A.f
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 2 Pronouns: he/him
Item 8.A
07/26/22
6 of 8 Item 8.A
07/26/22

8.A.f
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Patricia Hoffman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 7:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No on 11B and 16D, Yes on 8A and 11D

EXTERNAL
July 26
Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmembers:

I am updating my letter to you regarding the July 12 agenda to make it appropriate for the July 26 agenda. The issues remain the same but the item numbers have changed.

I again want to add my voice to the chorus of hundreds who have asked that you vote against putting Item 11B on the ballot. Please vote no on 11B. 11B is in direct competition with and could kill the people’s initiative in 8A. I also hope that you do not move forward with Item 16D.

It is too late to adequately study the consequences, both intended and unintended, of this item.

As a reminder, more than 10,000 Santa Monica voters have said that they want to tax extremely high-value real estate in order to subsidize rent burdened low-income Santa Monicans to keep them from becoming homeless, to build more affordable housing for our local work force, and to continue to guarantee high quality schools even if Malibu takes its money and runs. I strongly support Item 8A. I know you will be voting yes on it but I hope you will do so enthusiastically and that you will enthusiastically support the measure since you will be helping so many of your constituents by doing so.

Right now you will also have the opportunity to help many of the tenants of Santa Monica by voting yes on Item 11D. You can also place a 3% cap on general adjustments to the maximum allowable rents, in addition to the other components of Item 11D.

You have a rare opportunity to be heroes to thousands of struggling Santa Monicans in this very scary moment of uncertainty. Please vote no on Item 11B and 16D. Please vote yes on Item 8A and Item 11D.

Thank you,
Patricia Hoffman.

Item 8.A
07/26/22
7 of 8 Item 8.A
07/26/22

8.A.f
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Bill Dawson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 2:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Agenda Items No. 8A and 11B

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The ballot measure described in Agenda Item No. 8A includes an extremely high transfer tax which will hurt me and my family significantly should we elect to sell our property. Had it been in effect over the last 10 years, it would have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for low‐income housing and subsidies for tenants but not one nickel for public safety or after school recreational programs for our kids to provide revenue to restore community priorities lost during the pandemic such as the full reopening of libraries.  Also, I am troubled by this ballot measure as it does not have an exemption for religious organizations and nonprofit organizations.  I urge the Council to support the more moderate tax which is contemplated in the measure under consideration in Agenda Item No. 11B.  Not only will it be fairer to property owners but when coupled with the advisory measure described in Agenda Item No. 11B, it will direct the funds to those programs deemed most important to our residents.

Please add the moderate tax measure to the ballot! Let the people that have to pay this big bill decide.

Bill Dawson
Santa Monica resident, property owner and voter

Item 8.A
07/26/22
8 of 8 Item 8.A
07/26/22

8.A.f
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 1| HR&A Advisors Presentation Title
July 26, 2022
City Council Meeting Presentation
Prepared by: HR&A Advisors, Inc.

Summary ofthe "ImpactReport"on the
Funding forHomelessnessPrevention,
AffordableHousing, and SchoolsBallotMeasure

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) Outline
Impact Analysis Limitations & Approach
Transfer Tax & Ballot Measure Background
Ballot Measure Revenue Estimates
Illustrative Ballot Measure Expenditures
Risks to Revenues & Implementation
| HR&A Advisors Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 3 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors

1. TIME: The full 30-day window in the Elections Code was not actually available. Between the contracting and agenda preparation processes, only about 2.5 weeks were available to prepare the analysis.

2. A REVENUE MEASURE: The Ballot Measure itself is primarily a revenue raising measure to support specific program expenditure decisions by the City Council in the future. Therefore, it was not possible to analyze most of the Elections Code “impact” categories.

HR&A’s approach to preparing the analysis included the following tasks:
• Detailed review of the full text of the Ballot Measure and related information, and an interview with the proponents • Reviewed the City’s existing real estate transfer tax ordinance • Assembled and reviewed historical real estate transfer tax revenue data • Assembled and analyzed $8 million+ residential and commercial real estate sales during 2012 to 2021 • Reviewed 2012-2021 City expenditures related to Ballot Measure funding allocations with City Finance Department and City Community Services Department
• Interviewed senior real estate industry professionals knowledgeable about City circumstances • Assessed Ballot Measure revenue and implementation risks Limitations of the Impact Analysis
Overall Analysis Approach

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) Ballot Measure Overview
The "Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools" Ballot Measure seeks to add funding for homelessness prevention, affordable housing, and schools by amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 to provide a new Third Tier tax rate for real estate transfers of $8.0 million or more.

The proposed Third Tier Rate would be $56.00 per $1,000 of value transferred (i.e., sale price), of which $50 is in addition to the City’s existing tax rate schedule.

The Ballot Measure would create a School Fund and a Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund, of which:
• The first $10 million of funds shall go to the School Fund; • The next $40 million of funds shall go to the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund; and • Any funds above $50 million shall be deposited 20 percent to the Schools Fund and 80 percent to the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund.

The Ballot Measure would establish an 11-member Resident Oversight Committee, appointed by the City Council, to provide recommendations to the City Council for expenditures from the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund. All decisions about expenditures from the School Fund rest with the SMMUSD Board of Education.

The Ballot Measure does not contain a sunset provision. Therefore, the Third Tier tax rate could only be amended through a subsequent ballot measure approved by a majority of City voters. 4 | HR&A Advisors Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 5 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors The current City Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance (Municipal Code, Chapter 6.96) includes two tax tiers for properties sold below and above $5 million.

Ballot Measure Background
City
Transfer
Tax Tier
Transfer Value Tax Rate
1 Under $5.0 million 0.3% or $3 tax per $1,000 of value 2 $5.0 million and above 0.6% or $6 tax per $1,000 of value The Tier 2 tax rate was added by City voters when they approved Measure SM in 2020, including certain new exemptions for transfers to non-profits and for affordable housing.

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 6 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors The Ballot Measure is proposing a new Third Tier tax rate of 5.6% that would apply to real estate transfers of $8 million or more. 5.0% of the 5.6% Tier 3 rate is net new.

Ballot Measure Background
Sources: Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 6.96; Ballot Measure; HR&A Advisors City
Transfer Tax
Tier
Transfer Value Tax Rate
1 Under $5.0 million 0.3% or $3 tax per $1,000 of
value
2 $5,000,000-$7,999,999 0.6% or $6 tax per $1,000 of
value
3 (Proposed) $8.0 million or more 5.6% or $56 tax per $1,000 of value The tiered City tax rates are in addition to the $1.10/$1,000 rate applied by Los Angeles County.

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 7 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors Qualifying Tier 3 property sales would generate hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, in new tax revenue from each sale.

Ballot Measure Background
Sale Price
Tier 2 Tax Rate
(0.6% or
$6/1,000)
Proposed
Incremental Tier 3
Tax Rate
(5% or $50/$1,000)
Total Tax
(5.6% or
$56/$1,000)
$8 million $48,000 $400,000 $448,000
$12 million $72,000 $600,000 $672,000
$25 million $150,000 $1,250,000 $1,400,000
$50 million $300,000 $2,500,000 $2,800,000
$100 million $600,000 $5,000,000 $5,600,000
$200 million $1,200,000 $10,000,000 $11,200,000
Sources: Ballot Measure; HR&A Advisors

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 8 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors Revenue generated from the incremental 3rd Tier tax revenue would be allocated to two funds: The School Fund and the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund.

Ballot Measure Background
Sources: Ballot Measure; HR&A Advisors

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 9 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors ▪ Charter cities, like Santa Monica, are authorized to set city-specific tax rates that may exceed the usual city rate. ▪ Santa Monica's proposed 5.6% tax rate would be the highest rate in CA for properties sold between $8 million and $25 million Charter cities across California have implemented, or are proposing, additional property transfer tax rates on top of the statewide 0.11% transfer tax rate collected by counties.

Comparison to Other Cities
City
Santa
Monica
(Proposed)
Berkeley Culver City
Los
Angeles
(Proposed)
Oakland Richmond San Jose San
Francisco
Tax
Rates

0.3%: <$5M

0.6%:
$5M-$8M

5.6%: $8M+

1.5%:

Up to $1.5M

2.5%:
$1.5M+

0.45%:
<$1.5M

1.55%:
$2M-$3M
3%:
$3M-$10M
4%: $10M+

0.45%:
<$5M
4%:
$5M-$10M

5.5%:
$10M+
1%:
up to $300K

1.5%:
$300K-2M

1.75%:
$2M-$5M

2.5%:

Over $5M

0.7%:
under $1M

1.25%:
$1M-$3M

2.5%:
$3M-$10M
3%:
$10M+

0.33%: >$2M

1.08%:
$2M-$5M

1.33%:
$5M-$10M

1.83%:
$10M+

0.5%:
$100K-$250K

0.68%:
$250K-$1M

0.75%:
$1M$5M

2.25%:
$5M-$10M

5.5%:
$10M-$25M
6%: $25M+
Sources: City of Santa Monica; californiacityfinance.com; HR&A Advisors

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 10 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors Ballot Measure Revenue Estimate Approach
The impact report analysis provides a Ballot Measure revenue estimate based on the proposed incremental Tier 3 tax rate as if it had been applied to actual sales of $8 million or more over the previous 10 years (2012-2021) .

Analyzed commercial & multi-family property sales data from CoStar real estate database
Analyzed single-family home & condo sales from the Multiple Listing Service Reviewed preliminary estimates with the City’s Director of Finance and the Assistant City Treasurer

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 11 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors Commercial sales represent 82% of all qualifying transactions and 94% of sales value from 2012-2021. Sales of office, retail and multi-family buildings represent 85% of the commercial transactions.

Revenue Estimates
Year
Number
of Sales
$8M+
Total
Sales
2012 18 $507M
2013 19 $692M
2014 11 $267M
2015 30 $1.0B
2016 39 $2.4B
2017 23 $1.0B
2018 30 $1.2B
2019 23 $1.0B
2020 20 $496M
2021 21 $504M
Total 234 $9.2B
Sources: CoStar; HR&A Advisors

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 12 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors Year
Number
of Sales
$8M+
Total
Sales
2012 4 $40M
2013 4 $39.8M
2014 4 $52M
2015 4 $52.6M
2016 3 $37.8M
2017 9 $83.2M
2018 5 $50.3M
2019 7 $80.2M
2020 6 $52.5M
2021 6 $107M
Total 52 $595M
Single-family and condo sales represented 18% of all qualifying transactions and 6% of all total sales value from 2012-2021.

Revenue Estimates
Sources: Multiple Listing Service; HR&A Advisors

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 13 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors Based on historic data, potential tax revenue would have varied from a low of $16 million (2014) to a high of $123 million (2016), suggesting year-to-year fluctuationsin the level of tax received.

Based on historical sales data from 2012-2021, the City would have realized approximately $49 million in average annual revenue from the proposed Tier 3 tax rate.

Revenue Estimates
Summary
Total Sum of Sales Price (2012-21) $9,803,504,360
Total Potential Tax Revenues (2012-21) $490,175,218
Average Year Total 5% Tax AllocatedFunds $49,017,522
In an Average Year
(5% Tax Allocated Funds)
School Fund $10,000,000
Homelessness Prevention and Affordable
Housing Fund $39,017,522
Summary of Revenue Generated From Proposed Tier 3 Tax Rate Relationship between City Sales Transactions and Estimated Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenues Between 2012-2021
Sources: CoStar, Multiple Listing Service; City of Santa Monica; HR&A Advisors

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 14 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors Illustrative Expenditure Analysis Approach
Drawing from 10 years of City expenditure data, and the Ballot Measure's Fund allocations, the analysis compares how expenditures from the Ballot Measure's new annual tax revenue, by Fund category, compares with average annual City expenditures Grouped historical City expenditures into four Ballot Measure Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund categories.

Identified FY 2020-21 expenditures as a representative year, except for affordable housing production.

Used $7.5 million as a best estimate of average annual on-going expenditures for affordable housing, based on go-forward revenue sources and not one-time funding.

Compared illustrativeBallot Measure Fund allocations with estimates of existing City expenditures in the same general Fund categories.
1 2
3 4

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 15 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors The estimated annual average of $39 million in new tax revenue for the Homelessness Prevention & Affordable Housing Fund represents about 3 times the funding for similar expenditure categories.

Expenditure Estimates
Existing Expenditure Category
Existing
Expenditure
(FY2020-21
Actuals)
%
Illustrative
Additional
Expenditures
from Ballot
Measure
%
Administration
• Homeless Initiatives Staffing
• Housing Division
$2.4M 18% $2.3M 6%
Emergency Income Assistance
• HHSD Flex Funds
• POD Program
$2.1M 16% $11.7M 30%
Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and
Development of Affordable Housing $7.5M 56% $19.5M 50%
Programs to Preserve Tenancy
• LAFLA - General Community Legal
Services
• St. Joseph Center - Retention Program
• Step-Up On Second – Sanctuary
• Tenant Counseling
$1.3M 10% $5.5M 14%
Total $13.3M 100% $39.0M 100%
Sources: City of Santa Monica; Ballot Measure; HR&A Advisors

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 16 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors Illustrative Expenditures
The estimated annual average $19.5 million in new funding for affordable housing is more than 2.5 times the estimate of existing average annual expenditures.

Assuming average City subsidy values/unit and that all other financing sources and sufficient City administrative capacity are available, the Ballot Measure Funding could support annually about:
74 Affordable units on land acquired from a private party at market rate; or 182 Affordable units on City-owned land; or
36 Affordable units from the acquisition, rehabilitation and deed restriction of existing market-rate apartment buildings

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 17 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors The Ballot Measure tax revenue estimates are subject to a variety of risks. Some are risks whether or not the Ballot Measure passes; others may be a direct response to the scale of the incremental Tier 3 tax rate.

Risks to Tax Revenue
Economic & Real Estate Market Cycle Volatility
Uneven Numbers and Frequency of Large Transactions
Development Project and Investor Financial Feasibility Impacts Increase in Tax Avoidance Behavior
Potential Litigation

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 18 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors There are also implementation risks to achieving the programmatic benefits these additional resources could provide.

Risks for Implementation
Compliance, Implementation, and Enforcement Staffing Needs Eligibility Requirements Could Constrain Disbursements
Concerns Regarding Coordination of Expenditure Recommendations and Operation of the Residents Committee

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) 19 FundingforHomelessnessPrevention,AffordableHousing,andSchoolsBallotMeasureFunding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure| HR&A Advisors If voters approve the proposed Ballot Measure, the City could generate about $49 million in new annual tax revenues, based on previous sales of $8 million or more.

Conclusion
Subject to recommendations by the Resident Oversight Committee and approval or modification by City Council,the new tax revenues could make significant progress in addressing the needs of:
• Homeless persons needing housing;
• Rent-burdened, low-income existing households; and
• The City to produce a significant number of new units affordable to low- and moderateincome households However, due to market risks associated with the scale of the Tier 3 tax rate, there are reasons to be cautious about whether estimated revenue would be realized every year.

Additionally, caution is warranted about the City’s ability to deliver effective programs and new affordable units, to the degree that the Resident Oversight Committee and City Council may recommend.

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) Q&A
20 | HR&A Advisors Funding for Homelessness Prevention, Affordable Housing, and Schools Ballot Measure

8.A.g
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5262 : Qualified initiative petition) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Edward F King, Director, Mobility (DOT)
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend SMMC Sections

3.12.010 and 3.12.600 to allow non-electric pedicabs on Beach Bike-Path and recodify SMMC Section 3.12.380 prohibiting vehicle driving and parking on sidewalks and parkways
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance to do the following: (1) amend SMMC Section 3.12.010, Traffic Regulations, to define “Beach Bike-Path” and “Beach Promenade”; (2) amend Chapter 3.12.600 to permit pedicab operations on the Beach Bike-Path; and (3) recodify Section 3.12.380 prohibiting vehicle driving and parking on sidewalks and parkways.

Executive Summary
On May 24, 2022, City Council directed staff to amend existing pedicab regulations to allow non-electric pedicabs to operate on the Beach Bike-Path. Pedicabs serve as a transportation option for short trips and as a tourist attraction. State law grants municipalities authority to regulate pedicab operations. Santa Monica created regulations in 2013 which prohibited pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path over concerns about congestion on the path. With the widening of the Beach Bike-Path completed in 2020 and City Council support, this report seeks Council approval of amendments to SMMC Section 3.12.600 to allow non-electric pedicabs to operate on the Beach BikePath and to define Beach Bike-Path and Beach Promenade.

Additionally, staff recommends recodifying the prohibition of vehicle driving and parking on public sidewalks and parkways since it was discovered that the online version of the City’s Municipal Code had inadvertently removed the code section from public view.

10.A
Packet Pg. 265
2 of 5
Although the regulation remains in effect, it is presented for recodification to ease enforcement.

Discussion
This report addresses two code sections, one dealing with pedicabs on the beach bikepath and another to recodify the prohibition of vehicles driving and parking on sidewalks and parkways (see Attachment A).

Pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path
Pedicabs provide an alternative mode of transport that reduces pollution and motor congestion. Pedicab operations are regulated by SMMC Sections 6.50 and 3.12, and the City’s Pedicab Rules and Regulations established on May 28, 2013. A year-long pedicab pilot program was completed in 1998; however, the ordinance was not codified pending the completion of the pilot. Records show that no pedicabs operated during the pilot period and the Council took no action when the pilot program expired pursuant to the terms of the 1998 ordinance.

It was not until June 2012 when a pedicab operator applied for a business license that the City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance establishing pedicab regulations.

It was at this time that pedicabs were prohibited from the Beach Bike-Path which spans the City’s southern boundary at Venice to the City’s northern boundary adjacent to Pacific Palisades. The prohibition of pedicabs was due to the narrow width of the path and safety and congestion concerns, especially since the Beach Bike-Path and Beach Promenade overlapped in segments, requiring pedestrians and bikes to comingle.

The City recently completed the two-mile North Beach Trail Improvement Project which widened the existing Beach Bike-Path and added a separate, clearly defined path for pedestrians creating a more hospitable environment for pedicabs by separating bikes from pedestrians. Recent enforcement of the pedicab prohibition and calls from operators to change the code prompted the Council at the May 24, 2022 meeting to direct staff to implement the needed Code changes to allow non-electric pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path by summer 2022. The Council also directed that staff consider limiting the number of pedicabs that operate on the path to mitigate congestion.

10.A
Packet Pg. 266
3 of 5
Staff added a section to the Pedicabs Chapter of the Santa Monica Municipal Code authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to select a limited number of Beach BikePath operators. Governing the number of pedicabs requires a fair selection process that affords applicants due process which will take time to implement and could delay the implementation until after the summer season.

During the height of the program in 2014, a total of 50 pedicabs were licensed to operate in the City. Currently, there are approximately 25 pedicabs in operation (only two are electric). Staff will set the number of pedicabs permitted to operate on the Beach Bike-Path and monitor the results. If the number of pedicabs observed on the path contribute to conflicts, the number can be reduced. If no issues or conflicts are observed, then the number of pedicabs could be increased.

To exclude electric pedicabs, staff amended the ordinance to prohibit “motorized” pedicabs, including class 1 and class 2 electric pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path. Staff will create a separate decal to assist enforcement staff in differentiating between the non-electric pedicabs allowed on the Beach Bike-Path and other pedicabs that are only allowed on City streets. Prohibiting electric pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path is intended to provide safer conditions for all path users since pedicabs with passengers are larger and heavier than most bicycles on the path so keeping their speeds low will reduce the force during a collision.

To address congestion and other safety concerns, staff will amend the Rules and Regulations to incorporate specific pick-up and drop-off zones accessible from the Beach Bike-Path. To address the Council’s directive before the end of the 2022 summer season, official pick-up and drop-off zones will be established later or simultaneously with the code adoption process to allow time to evaluate the locations and to create signage. Currently, pick-up and drop of is governed by SMMC Section 6.50.110(b)(3 & 4), which prohibits operation that impedes or blocks the normal or reasonable movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic unless such operation is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law or under the direction of law enforcement personnel;

10.A
Packet Pg. 267
4 of 5
and prohibits loading or unloading of pedicab passengers on travel lanes or in the middle of roadways.

To avoid confusion about where pedicabs are permitted to operate, staff recommend clarifying that the Beach Promenade includes Ocean Front Walk by amending SMMC Section 3.12.010 to define “Beach Bike-Path” and “Beach Promenade.” Prohibiting Vehicle Driving and Parking on Sidewalks and Parkways City staff also recommends recodifying the prohibition of vehicle driving and parking on sidewalks and parkways, as this code section was inadvertently removed from the City’s online Municipal Code website.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
January 27, 1998 Ordinance approving pedicab pilot program on a portion of Main Street.

October 2, 2012 City Council Study Session regarding pedicab operations.

April 9, 2013 Ordinance adding SMMC 6.50 to establish pedicab regulations, amending SMMC 3.12.550 to prohibit pedicabs from operating on the Beach Bike-Path, and amending
SMMC 6.48.030 to require pedicabs to have a business
license. Adoption of resolution setting annual pedicab permit fees.

May 28, 2013 Effective Date of Pedicab Rules and Regulations July 28, 2020 Ordinance amending Transportation Demand Management, Preferential Parking, Pedicabs and Bike Share. Eliminated local pedicab driver permit and operator permit requirements and updated SMMC to remain in compliance with State law.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Nominal costs are anticipated to create and install signage for the pedicab stands for passenger loading and to order new decals to differentiate between pedicabs authorized to operate on the path and those that are not, which will be absorbed in the Mobility Division operating budget.

The Business License Unit processes business license applications and verifies insurance. Pedicab inspections are currently performed by the Mobility Division in the

10.A
Packet Pg. 268
5 of 5
Department of Transportation. Pedicab rules are enforced by Code Enforcement staff and “rules of the road” are enforced by the Police Department.

Prepared By: Ariel Pepper, Transportation Planning Technician Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A - 3.12 PedicabBeachBikePathOrdinance July 26 2022_PD B. Attachment B - California Vehicle Code
C. January 27, 1998 - Pedicab Pilot Program (Web Link)
D. October 2, 2012 - City Council Study Session (Web Link) E. April 9, 2013 - Ordinance Change (Web Link)
F. May 28, 2013 - Effective Date of Pedicab Rules and Regulation (Web Link) G. July 28, 2020 - Ordinance Change (Web Link)
H. Written Comments
I. PowerPoint Presentation

10.A
Packet Pg. 269
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.12

TO ALLOW NON-ELECTRIC PEDICABS ON THE SANTA MONICA BEACH BIKE

PATH AND RECODIFY THE PROHIBITION OF DRIVING AND PARKING VEHICLES

ON SIDEWALKS AND PARKWAYS
WHEREAS, pedicabs serve as a transportation option for short trips and as a tourist attraction, and state law, California Vehicle Code Section 21100(n), grants municipalities authority to regulate pedicab operations; and WHEREAS, the City created regulations in 2013 prohibiting pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path over concerns about congestion on the Beach Bike-Path; and WHEREAS, since that time, the Beach Bike-Path has been widened; and WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2022 regular meeting, Council directed staff to amend existing pedicab regulations to allow a limited number of non-electric pedicabs to operate on the Beach Bike-Path; and
WHEREAS, prohibiting electric pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path is intended to improve safety for all users by reducing their operating speeds; and WHEREAS, Pedicabs are larger, heavier and have more mass than electric bicycles; and

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment A - 3.12 PedicabBeachBikePathOrdinance July 26 2022_PD (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle WHEREAS, Reducing the speed of pedicabs reduces the force of the pedicab when collisions occur; and
WHEREAS, Reducing the speed of pedicabs decreases the distance needed to stop a pedicab; and
WHEREAS, allowing pedicabs to operate on the Beach Bike Path will increase opportunities for zero emissions transportation options along the beach for residents and tourists alike; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to correct an inadvertent deletion of code language by recodifying the prohibition of vehicle driving and parking on public sidewalks and parkways.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 3.12.010 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

3.12.010 Definitions
(a) Unless expressly stated otherwise, the words and phrases used in this Chapter shall have the meanings set forth in the California Vehicle Code. (b) “Beach Bike-Path” shall encompass the established Marvin Braude Bike Trail area spanning from the City’s southern boundary adjacent to Venice to the City’s northern boundary adjacent to Pacific Palisades.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment A - 3.12 PedicabBeachBikePathOrdinance July 26 2022_PD (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle (c) “Beach Promenade” shall encompass pedestrian-only segments along Ocean Front Walk and the path adjacent to the Beach Bike-Path extending from the City’s Southern boundary adjacent to Venice, to the City’s northern boundary adjacent to Pacific Palisades.
(db) “Business district” shall mean that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto upon one side of which highway for a distance of three hundred feet, where fifty percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or upon both sides of which highway collectively for a distance of one hundred fifty feet, where fifty percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is so occupied. (ec) “Driveway apron” shall mean that portion of a regularly established driveway lying between a property line and any curb, the purpose of which is to provide vehicular access from the street across the curb, parkway and sidewalk to the property fronting thereon or abutting thereto.
(fd) “Loading zone” shall mean that space adjacent to a curb reserved for the exclusive use of vehicles actively engaged in loading or unloading of materials, freight or passengers.
(ge) “Parkway” shall mean that portion of a street other than a roadway or a sidewalk.

SECTION 2. Section 3.12.600 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment A - 3.12 PedicabBeachBikePathOrdinance July 26 2022_PD (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle

3.12.600 Bicycles, electric bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, electrically motorized boards, low-speed vehicles, motorized scooters, pedicabs, roller skates, skateboards, and similar devices. (a) Beach Promenade. It shall be unlawful to ride or operate a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, low-speed vehicle, motorized scooter, pedicab or other vehicle upon the Beach Promenade.
(b) Beach Bike-Path. It shall be unlawful to ride or operate a pedicab, a motorized bicycle or a class 3 (as defined in the California Vehicle Code) electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, low-speed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle upon the Bbeach bBikepPath. Class 1 and class 2 (as defined in the California Vehicle Code) electric bicycles are permitted on the Bbeach Bbike-Ppath, however, no pedicab with a motor, including class 1 and class two electric bicycle pedicabs, shall be permitted on the Beach Bike-Path. Bicycle riding shall be permitted along the Bbeach BbikePpath, within the City limits and in those areas where the Beach Promenade constitutes a portion of the bikeway and are otherwise permitted by sign. All persons riding bicycles on the Bbeach Bbike-Ppath shall comply with all lawful signs and directional markings, including, but not limited to, painted, directional arrows, bike-path route boundaries, and signs designating permissible travel lanes.
(c) Public Sidewalks. It shall be unlawful to ride or operate a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, low-speed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle upon any public sidewalk.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment A - 3.12 PedicabBeachBikePathOrdinance July 26 2022_PD (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle (d) Public Parking Structure. It shall be unlawful to ride or operate a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, low-speed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle in any public parking structure.
(e) Roller Skates, Skateboards, and Similar Devices. The City Council may, by resolution, adopt regulations prohibiting or limiting the use of roller skates, skateboards and similar devices with wheels in public street rights-of-way and public areas, where necessary for public safety.
(f) Third Street Promenade and Municipal Pier. The City Council may, by resolution, adopt regulations prohibiting or limiting the use of roller skates, skateboards and similar devices with wheels; bicycles; electric bicycles; electric personal assistive mobility devices; electrically motorized boards; low-speed vehicles; motorized scooters; and/or other vehicles on the Third Street Promenade and/or the Municipal Pier, where necessary for public safety. (g) Reckless Riding or Operating. It shall be unlawful to ride or operate a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, low-speed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Reckless and unlawful operating includes carrying any other person upon the bar, handle bars, floorboard or other area of a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, low-speed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle not designed for passenger riding or designed for a single person,

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment A - 3.12 PedicabBeachBikePathOrdinance July 26 2022_PD (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle and reckless and unlawful riding includes riding in any such a manner. Reckless and unlawful operating also includes clinging to or attaching oneself or one’s motorized or non-motorized wheeled device to any moving vehicle or motorized or non-motorized wheeled device.
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, or any other Section of this Code, public safety personnel may operate a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, low-speed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle at any place in the City in the performance of their duties.
(i) This Section shall not apply to any person who is operating a selfpropelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.

SECTION 3. Section 6.50.035 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is added as follows:

6.50.035 Beach Bike-Path Operation Limit and Selection Process The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to limit the number of pedicab operators allowed to operate on the Beach Bike-Path, and limit the number of pedicabs each permitted pedicab operator may operate at any time on the Beach Bike-Path. The process of selection shall be included in the rules and regulations created under Section

6.50.030.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment A - 3.12 PedicabBeachBikePathOrdinance July 26 2022_PD (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle SECTION 4. Section 3.12.380 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby recodified and amended as follows:

3.12.380 Driving on sidewalk or Ocean Front Beach Promenade Except as hereinafter provided in this Section no operator of a motor vehicle shall drive on, over, along, or upon, or park upon, any sidewalk, parkway, or curb, or on, along, over, or onto, any sidewalk, parkway, or curb other than on or over a regularly established driveway or roadway. The Chief of Police is authorized and empowered to grant permission under such regulations as he shall deem necessary to protect the public safety and the interests of the City to: (a) any person to deliver merchandise along the Ocean FrontBeach Promenade; (b) any person to operate tram cars on the Ocean Front Beach Promenade providing such person is not operating contrary to any state law relative to public carriers for hire.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, no operator of a motor vehicle shall park upon any driveway apron.

SECTION 5. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment A - 3.12 PedicabBeachBikePathOrdinance July 26 2022_PD (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment A - 3.12 PedicabBeachBikePathOrdinance July 26 2022_PD (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle California Vehicle Code CVC 312.5. Electric Bicycle
(a) An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.
(1) A “class 1 electric bicycle,” or “low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
(2) A “class 2 electric bicycle,” or “low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
(3) A “class 3 electric bicycle,” or “speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and equipped with a speedometer.
(b) A person riding an electric bicycle, as defined in this section, is subject to Article 4 (commencing with Section 21200) of Chapter 1 of Division 11. (c) On and after January 1, 2017, manufacturers and distributors of electric bicycles shall apply a label that is permanently affixed, in a prominent location, to each electric bicycle. The label shall contain the classification number, top assisted speed, and motor wattage of the electric bicycle, and shall be printed in Arial font in at least 9-point type.
(Added by Stats. 2015, Ch. 568, Sec. 1. (AB 1096) Effective January 1, 2016.) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=312.5.

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment B - California Vehicle Code [Revision 1] (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle Parking in the 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Dan Kerrigan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 11:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Pedicabs on the Beach Bike Path

EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Daniel Kerrigan and I have been involved with pedicabs in Santa Monica since their regulation by city ordinance in 2013. Ever since the beginning of pedicabs, the prohibition of pedicabs from going places they can safely operate and help people has been confusing. The argument against pedicabs on the bike path has come down to a safety issue. It is hard to see this as a reasonable measure while surrey bikes are freely rented and operated, and have never been targeted and ticketed despite their significantly slower speeds and identical if not wider width, not to mention all the other electric bikes and vehicles for rent, as well as personal electric vehicles darting up and down the bike path, who likely don't carry a 1m/2m insurance policy like pedicabs do. It feels even more confusing to enforce code against pedicabs in specific, targeting working people for tickets for driving at a moderate speed, operating safely without incident, and helping people who have decided they or their children have walked enough but would like to remain by the beach. Pedicabs are easily and safely passed, are aware of their circumstances, and most importantly, do not travel at unsafe speeds‐they are faster than the casual cyclist renting a cruiser, and slower than you century rider who can't quite blaze through The Strand without understanding he'll run into pedestrians wandering into the bike path anyway at some point between Santa Monica and Venice. So it begs the question‐why are 20 pedicabs the target of all this unreasonable financial encumbrance for our businesses? A ticket can cost a driver their entire day's pay, and they are playing cat‐and‐mouse with code enforcement to provide service to what is clearly a market that wants this.

Holding city‐inspected bicycle‐powered pedicabs specifically accountable denies pedicabs viability as an operation by cutting them off to the place where most people are, and prevents the public from seeking an enjoyable solution to a popular request, and continuing to uphold this ordinance makes it clear that other businesses who offer similar solutions are being favored over pedicab business license holders. Allowing pedicabs on the bike path creates economy for the city, and allows code enforcement to focus on more egregious offenses than fining working people for operating a bicycle powered vehicle on a bike path.

I encourage the city to clearly state in an amended ordinance that pedicabs are allowed on the bike path and allow code enforcement to focus on more important efforts of safety.

Thank you,
Dan Kerrigan
Pedicab United
617.571.5452
Item 10.A
07/26/22
1 of 6 Item 10.A
07/26/22

10.A.h
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle Parking in the Parkway) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: brian dudley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 5:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Motors help me keep my job- Brian Dudley

EXTERNAL
Brian Dudley‐ I have been working pedicab at major events and in Southern California for over 15 years. Ten years into my career I suffered a herniated disc from riding and managing a 15 pedicab operation at la coliseum. Since then I have only been able to do my job with a motor. I have served almost every company as fleet mechanic operating in Santa Monica for the last decade. There are several layers to this industry to state outright. To limit motors would create an entirely unsafe scenerio exclusively inviting mainly young  inexperienced people to get on bikes who would be replacing older more experienced rider with younger, often times reckless operators. To be forced out and replace the older riders who can’t physically pedal seems like a bad scenario. It would create a monopoly of these llc companies operator information in Santa Monica and likely force me to leave the state. I would recommend monthly or even weekly safety checks. I saw a bike the other day from a company I no longer do maintenance for with a wheel about to fall off. I would highly recommend a speed limit and let that be inforced with common sense. I would go 5‐10 Miles an hour just as someone pedaling and no faster if I was aloud to use a motor inorder to keep my job. Responsible operators operating properly should be the goal and the priority. I don’t see why I should be forced out of an industry I have helped keep alive for the last decade because of sciatica, and back injuries prevents me from riding like I could when I was younger. the idea of no motors is the idea of one company trying to have a monopoly of the pedicabs on the Beach front inorder so they can have advertising monopoly simply and purely. It would create a scenario often times where companies compete and raise prices on their renters so that the average pedal powered rider is barely able to sqweek by making anything after he pays a rent. I think doing away with renter oriented companies and work with individual riders who provide their own insurance, you would create a environment of solidarity and safety with motors and much less companies profiting from a near slavery scenario. Furthermore,  I cannot tell you how a slow pedal powered creates incredible traffic congestion compared to something that is a little more capable to keeping up with the flow of traffic and even able to adapt to the unique area that is Santa Monica by having the ablility to go up hills and away from the beach path when it makes logical sense to do so. If I was restricted from riding on the beach because of using a motor, I would not work in Santa Monica at all because I would go broke and skinny trying to work the downtown area. It would not work to make the distinction between motorized and non motorized and would not improve safety on the beach front. a speed limit is the answer. Everything else is a power grab from a single particular pedicab company. I’d be happy talk privately about more details regarding this industry, my concerns, solutions to problems, the numbers behind it from my understanding all of these different companies from the inside.

Brian Dudley
Item 10.A
07/26/22
2 of 6 Item 10.A
07/26/22

10.A.h
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle Parking in the Parkway) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: JoWanda Dziesinski <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 12:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Pedicabs on Bike Path-focus on Illegal Motors
Hello,
I'm excited and thankful that pedicabs on the bike path are up for discussion on the Santa Monica City Council.

I own Green Goddess Pedicabs, and I am unique among pedicab owners in that I have also lived in Santa Monica over a decade and raised a family here, so I am also a community member and safety and benefit to the community is a priority in addition to having a pleasant, eco-friendly business here.

Pedicabs are a natural fit for Santa Monica's eco-friendly, alternative transportation values, as well as providing a valuable,welcome service for the many tourists who visit our town. There are locals who take pedicabs often as well, and appreciate this carless option for our city.

I have been involved with pedicabs since they were permitted about 10 years ago and am very familiar with how things work at the street level. Here are my concerns as it relates to moving forward with the very positive idea of allowing pedicabs on the bike path:

In the Staff Report, it says "Currently, there are approximately 25 pedicabs in operation (only two are electric)." This is completely incorrect. MOST pedicabs operating on the bike path are electric (Motorized) right now. Not only that, but many motors are so powerful, they are not even legal on the street per California law (the limit is 750 watts).

Specific Example: 100% of "Beach Buggy" pedicabs (Troy Dalmasso) come equipped from the factory with powerful motors that go upwards of 30 miles an hour. Jayson Gladstone's pedicab is the same. ( In my Santa Monica neighborhood there are signs that remind drivers of CARS to slow down because "only 50 percent of people survive at speeds of 30 miles an hour. !!! Why is this allowed on the bike path???)
However, these pedicabs received the city sticker. When I pointed this out before and during the inspection, I was told there was "nothing we can do" but then told that "safety for the public" is the main concern. The current focus of inspections is on things that are Rarely used in practicality (ex.

Seatbelts) but pedicabs that go upwards of 30 miles an hour are approved. Vehicles going that fast belong at the DMV, not on the bike path or classed as bicycles.? In comparison, a non-motorized pedicab is probably going about 6 miles an hour.

There is a serious disconnect between City Council, Code Enforcement, and the Inspection Process. In order for there to be a true, "Non-motorized" pedicab program, both inspections and code enforcement must become knowledgeable about motors and also able to take action.

For starters, if you see a pedicab go by at a very fast speed, and the driver isn't even pedaling! His legs are still as the pedicab moves forward at a fast speed.That is a big indicator. This currently is what happens all the time. Shouldn't code enforcement be watching for that, and ticket and remove that person from the bike path?
Item 10.A
07/26/22
3 of 6 Item 10.A
07/26/22

10.A.h
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle Parking in the Parkway) 2 IN the inspection process, inspectors should be knowledgeable and able to take action, not allowing pedicabs with powerful motors. In truth, they should not allow Any Motors, because I assure you that any pedicab is going to spend 95% of their time on the bike path. Currently, almost No one operates on "City Streets" .These are the kind of disconnects in the policymaking and how things are really working, that I am seeking to address.
"To exclude electric pedicabs, staff amended the ordinance to prohibit “motorized” pedicabs, including class 1 and class 2 electric pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path. Staff will create a separate decal to assist enforcement staff in differentiating between the non-electric pedicabs allowed on the Beach Bike-Path and other pedicabs that are only allowed on City streets. Prohibiting electric pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path is intended to provide safer conditions for all path users since pedicabs with passengers are larger and heavier than most bicycles on the path so keeping their speeds low will reduce the force during a collision. "
-That is exactly right, except that once again I reiterate, that both Inspection and Code Enforcement must become knowledgeable about motors in order for this to actually happen.

Otherwise, the public will continue to be endangered by vehicles that are more akin to Motorized Golf Carts or motorcycles (perhaps they should go to the DMV?), operating with no problem at all zooming along the bike path. Currently, Inspection and Code Enforcement is completely and totally "out of touch", as they say. ( In my Santa Monica Neighborhood, there are signs reminding CAR DRIVERS to slow down, as "only 50% of people survive at speeds of 30mph." This is being allowed on the Bike Path? Every day)
I would go further to say that pedicab operators who have with full knowledge willingly deceived the City. put the public in danger, and created unfair business practice (they can go so much faster than lawful, non-motorized pedicabs, get more customers, and create an environment where everyone feels they must get a motor to compete) and had illegal motors IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, not just the bike path, should not be invited to this future program. They do not show good faith of being good members of the community with the community benefit in mind, only their own, immediate (and unfair and unsafe practice) of making money.

Also here is an article that talks about the different types of motors. The title says it all. https://electricbike-blog.com/2016/01/12/cyclone-3000w-mid-drive-if-youre-gonna-buildsomething-this-illegal-then-it-better-be-able-to-outrun-the-cops/ Illegal motors on pedicabs (or motors at all on the bike path) "Middrive".motors are all over the legal limit and also some front hub motors Currently there are Approved, Registered Pedicabs operating, ironically, on the bike path. (they have the city registration sticker). What this means is that although in the registration process pedicabs are being checked for lights, seat belts, etc. those checking the pedicabs are not aware of, and do not know how to check for ILLEGAL MOTORS. California law prohibits ANY motors over 750w and quite a few City-Approved Pedicabs are operating with 1000w or even up to 3000w motors. THIS is an actual safety concern and should be the top priority now of both those who inspect pedicabs as well as code enforcement, to completely eliminate this. To put it as an example, instead of a non-motorized pedicab going about six miles an hour, these motors can go over 30 miles an hour, and people do that on the bicycle path. This could actually seriously hurt or even kill someone. Considering the reality that 99% of pedicabs operate Exclusively on the bike path (whether it's currently allowed or not) that means that Motorized vehicles closer in nature to a Golf Cart that you can drive, are on the bike path with pedestrians and children riding bicycles. All the focus of safety with pedicabs and code enforcement must be redirected to this truly legitimate concern. No motorized pedicabs should be allowed on the bike path and both Pedicab Inspection CIty Officials which issue city stickers and Code Item 10.A
07/26/22
4 of 6 Item 10.A
07/26/22

10.A.h
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle Parking in the Parkway) 3 Enforcement should know how to recognize motors on pedicabs (there is a throttle on the handlebar, how to check for a middrive motor which is almost guaranteed to be illegal, even on the street, by California law). They should NOT pass inspection and get the right to operate in Santa Monica and should be immediately ticketed and evicted from the bike path.

Another separate issue is consistency of Fares for the Public. The Fare Cards required by Inspection are another thing that goes in the trash once Inspection is over. Just informing. However, I would like to point out that for the public, is it fair that one person charges $30 and another person charges $70, for the same distance? Not surprisingly, the ones "price gouging" the public, are also absolutely, the ones with the illegal motors, once again demonstrating that they are not interested in working to create a fair and pleasant (business) community for all. I propose city-mandated fares, for all pedicabs, such as what they have in San Francisco, in order to create a fair and pleasant environment for the public.

2. Pedicab Driver Requirements-While cost-prohibitive and impractical in the early years, (the bicycle skills course was very unrelated to pedicabbing ) its intent served a function of public safety. I'm not sure why this was done away with, and at first I liked it that there was less paperwork, but I think pedicab driver licenses should be brought back, in a more practical form. This eliminates the concern that someone with DUIs or a criminal record is operating a pedicab, and that is a real safety concern. A. Require a police background check. B. Consider a PEDICAB safety course, taught by someone who actually pedicabs. C. Consider drug testing those operating a pedicab.

By requiring reasonable background check for drivers and creating realistic, knowledgeable measures for eliminating Motors from the bike path, it opens up for a safe, pleasant addition to the beach scene in Santa Monica: Non-motorized pedicabs.

Thank you
JoWanda Dziesinski
310-528-4397
11 year resident To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.


JoWanda Dziesinski <[email protected]>
to commissionerbrock, phil.brock To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

I would like to add that Code Enforcement could consider drug testing drivers while they are operating vehicles to ensure they are not under any influence (alcohol or marijuana) while driving.

Also here is an article that talks about the different types of motors. The title says it all. https://electricbike-blog.com/2016/01/12/cyclone-3000w-mid-drive-if-youre-gonna-buildsomething-this-illegal-then-it-better-be-able-to-outrun-the-cops/ Item 10.A
07/26/22
5 of 6 Item 10.A
07/26/22

10.A.h
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle Parking in the Parkway) 4 To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

Item 10.A
07/26/22
6 of 6 Item 10.A
07/26/22

10.A.h
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Vehicle Parking in the Parkway) Item 10.A
Pedicabs & Parkway Parking
July 26, 2022

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Non-electric Pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path
Why?: Completion of the North Beach Trail Improvement Project created a more hospitable environment for pedicabs. City Council directed staff to allow a limited number of non-electric pedicabs on Beach Bike-Path
How?: Municipal Code changes include:

1. Allow non-electric pedicabs on Beach Bike-Path

2. Authorize City Manager to create a process to limit the number of operators and the number of pedicabs

3. Improve definitions for Beach Promenade and Beach Bike-Path

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Recodify No Parking on Parkways
Why?: Online version of the Municipal Code inadvertently removed the section from public view.

How?:Recodify the prohibition of vehicle driving and parking on public sidewalks and parkways SMMC 3.12.380

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Questions?

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Lottery Process

1. Complete lottery by Sept 23

2. Beach Bike Path decals valid for fiscal year

3. Notice existing pedicab operators and post notice immediately after second reading.

4. Must be licensed operator with nonelectric pedicab to be eligible

5. Strive for fairness in the lottery process. If there are fewer operators than decals, each operator is provided one decal before randomly distributing

6. Number of decals fixed for year 1

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
Max Speed 20 mph 20 mph 28 mph
Boost requires Pedal Yes No Yes
Has Throttle No Yes Yes
Electric Assist

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Non-electric Pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path
• Amend SMMC 3.12.010 to include improved definitions for Beach Promenade and Beach Bike-Path
• Amend SMMC 3.12.600 to clarify that pedicab are prohibited from using the Beach Promenade and that non-electric pedicabs are permitted on the Beach Bike-Path
• Amend SMMC 6.50.035 to authorize the City Manager to create a process to limit the number of operators and the number of pedicabs they operate on the Beach Bike-Path under the rules and regulations created under Section 6.50.030

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit …

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Attendees • SMPD • Fire • Code Enforcement • Communications • City Atty • Beach and Pier Administrator • Business License Unit

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit City Council
• City Council directed City Staff to pursue amending SMMC to allow limited number of non-electric pedicabs on Beach Bike-Path (May 24, 2022)
• Entered as an Item 13 and requested quick turn around • Current SMMC (3.12.600 & 6.50) prohibits all pedicabs from Beach Bike-Path

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Pedicab Code and History • Pilot Pedicab Program (January 27, 1998) • Pedicab Study Session (October 2, 2012) • Staff Report • Presentation • Ordinance (April and May 2013) • Staff Report • Pedicab Rules and Regulations (May 28, 2013) • Mobility Restructuring (July 28, 2020) • Staff Report

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Electric Assist • CVC 312.5 • Cannot exceed 750 watts • Classes 1 and 2 cannot exceed 20 mph • Class 3 cannot exceed 28 mph • CVC 467.5 • State code acknowledging electric bicycles for pedicab use

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Electric Assist
• Hub-Drive vs Mid-Drive
• Hub-Drive – Motor integrated into front or rear wheel (operates independently of gearing)
• Mid-Drive – Motor directly drives bicycle’s front chainring (influenced by gearing) • Preferred type for peak performance
• Community Concerns
• Public believes we may allow over 1000 watt bicycles which will exceed 28 mph

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit Map of Potential Parking Stands
• https://earth.google.com/earth/d/1mWsUg4iK5ZpgKIkLscrnW62Ifwm aD9D8?usp=sharing
Watts (W) = unit of energy
Watts = Amps (A) x Volts (V)
Example:
12A controller x 36V battery = 432 Watts

10.A.i
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5199 : Pedicabs on Beach Bike Path and Prohibit City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance approving the Ocean Avenue Project Development Agreement
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on July 14, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to approve the Ocean Avenue Project Development Agreement. The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022
B. OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F C. OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 2 of 2 exhibits G-P D. Exhibit B Project Plans 07.26.2022 Part 1 of 3
E. Exhibit B Project Plans 07.26.2022 Part 2 of 3
F. Exhibit B Project Plans 07.26.2022 Part 3 of 3

10.B
Packet Pg. 299
1 of 19
City Council Meeting: July 26, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER __________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

AND BELLE VUE PLAZA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND OCEAN

AVENUE PARTNERS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (COLLECTIVELY, “THE DEVELOPER”)
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65450 et seq. permits each city to adopt a specific plan for the systematic implementation of the general plan for individual areas covered by the general plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and Chapter 9.60 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (collectively, the “Development Agreement Statutes”), the City is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons or entities having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such real property; and
WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of approximately 82,570 square feet of land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 101 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1337 Ocean Avenue, 1333 Ocean Avenue, 1327 Ocean Avenue and 129 Santa Monica Boulevard (collectively, the “Project Site”); and WHEREAS, the Project Site consists of:

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 2 of 19
(1) approximately 52,570 square feet of land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 101 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1337 Ocean Avenue, 1333 Ocean Avenue, 1327 Ocean Avenue (collectively the “Ocean Avenue Parcel”) which consists of:
(i) the land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 101 Santa Monica Boulevard (and also commonly known as 103 Santa Monica Boulevard, 105 Santa Monica Boulevard, 107 Santa Monica Boulevard, 109 Santa Monica Boulevard, 111 Santa Monica Boulevard, 113 Santa Monica Boulevard, 115 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1355 Ocean Avenue and 1357 Ocean Avenue) that is currently improved with a two-story mixed-use commercial/residential structure with a rooftop penthouse apartment (the “101 Santa Monica Boulevard Building”) and surface parking,
(ii) the land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 1337 Ocean Avenue that is currently improved with (i) a two-story building that was originally built in 1926, is a City-designated Landmark (LC04-LM-005) and is in commercial use (the “Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark”), a detached one-story rear structure that is in commercial use (the “1337 Ocean Avenue Rear Structure”), and surface parking,
(iii) the land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 1333 Ocean Avenue that is currently improved with a two-story building that was originally built in 1906, is a City-designated Landmark (LC01LM-001) and is in commercial use (the “Queen Anne Landmark”), a separate two10.B.a Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 3 of 19
story rear structure that is in commercial use and is connected to the 1333 Ocean Avenue Landmark by an unenclosed catwalk and staircase (the “1333 Ocean Avenue Rear Structure”), and surface parking and
(iv) the land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 1327 Ocean Avenue that is currently improved with a two-story building that is in commercial use (the “1327 Ocean Avenue Building”) and surface parking; and
(2) approximately 30,000 square feet of land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 129 Santa Monica Boulevard (the “Second Street Parcel”) that is currently improved with surface parking; and WHEREAS, the City has included the Project Site within the Downtown Core land use designation under the City’s 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element of its General Plan (the “LUCE”). LUCE Policy D1.5 designates the Project Site as one of seven sites in the Downtown District to focus new investment given its accessibility to transit and ability to accommodate mixed-use development, contribute to the pedestrian-oriented environment, and support substantial community benefits. The LUCE did not establish maximum building height limits, floor area ratios (“FAR”), or other specific development standards (e.g., setbacks and step backs) for new buildings within the Downtown Core designation; instead, the LUCE deferred such standards to a future Downtown specific plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2013, Developer filed an application for a Development Agreement (13DEV-004), pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 4 of 19
(“SMMC”) Section 9.60.020 (the “Development Application”). The Development Application proposes a mixed-use project with a hotel, residences, a cultural uses campus, ground floor pedestrian-oriented restaurant and retail uses and subterranean parking. The originally-filed plans (the “2013 Plans”) proposed, among other things, 125 hotel rooms, 22 residential condominium units, 19 replacement rental apartments, 5 affordable rental apartments, a cultural uses campus including the preservation and adaptive re-use of the Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark and Queen Anne Landmark, ground floor restaurants and retail, an observation deck, a maximum height of 244 feet and a 4.0 FAR. As further described below, the Development Application has been revised and refined since the initial filing but has always included hotel, residential, cultural uses, pedestrian-oriented retail/restaurant uses, and subterranean parking, as is more fully described in the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2013, the Architectural Review Board held a public hearing to preliminarily review and provide feedback on the 2013 Plans; and WHEREAS, in August 2017, the City adopted the Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”), a specific plan governing the Downtown including the Project Site. Consistent with the LUCE, the Project Site is located within the Established Large Site (“ELS”) Overlay designation with the Ocean Avenue Parcel also having the Ocean Transition designation and the Second Street Parcel also having the Bayside Conservation designation. The ELS Overlay is provided for three sites in the Downtown that the DCP indicated have the potential to accommodate significant new development and provide significant community benefits. The ELS Overlay designation allows any project on the Project Site to request approval for development up to 130 feet in height and a 4.0 FAR

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 5 of 19
subject to the project being processed through a development agreement, as well as compliance with other specified requirements. Table 2A.4 of the DCP lists three “preferred” community benefits for a project on the Project Site: affordable housing, cultural institution, and historic preservation, all of which are included in the Project; and WHEREAS, after adoption of the DCP, the 2013 Plans were revised to conform with the DCP. In comparison to the 2013 Plans, revised plans filed in 2018 (the “2018 Plans”), included, among other things, elimination of the residential condominiums and replacement with 100% rental apartments (including more affordable housing), reduced density (2.95 FAR), a reduced hotel program, and reduced height (maximum height of 130 feet); and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, the Architectural Review Board held a public hearing to preliminarily review and provide feedback on the 2018 Plans; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2018, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing to preliminarily review and provide feedback on the 2018 Plans; and WHEREAS, on May 2, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider, review and provide preliminary comments on the revised design concept, and to identify potential community benefits for consideration (commonly referred to as a “float up” discussion). The Planning Commission was generally supportive of the overall design concept, including the relationship between building height and open space, the emphasis on the pedestrian experience, and the proposed cultural uses campus as a community benefit. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council proceed with development agreement discussions; and

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 6 of 19
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2018, the City Council held a “float-up” public hearing to preliminarily review and provide feedback on the 2018 Plans. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission’s May 2, 2018 recommendation and directed City staff to initiate the development agreement negotiations and review process for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the project (the “Project”) is more specifically described in the Development Agreement and now includes, among other things, the following components:
(1) a full-service hotel building located in the central area of the Ocean Avenue Parcel (the “Hotel Building”),
(2) a cultural uses campus that is located north of the Hotel Building on the Ocean Avenue Parcel and is comprised of a new building (the “Cultural Uses Building”) and the relocated Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark and Queen Anne Landmark, which would be rehabilitated for adaptive reuse as part of the cultural uses campus, and open space (the “Cultural Uses Campus”),
(3) a building with restaurant/retail uses that is located near the corner of Ocean Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard on the Ocean Avenue Parcel (the “Corner Building”),
(4) a mixed-use residential apartment building with ground floor retail/restaurant space located on the Ocean Avenue Parcel near the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and First Court Alley (the “Santa Monica Boulevard Building”),

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 7 of 19
(5) a mixed-use building(s) with retail/restaurant space located on the ground floor/podium level and residential apartments located within three separate forms/structures situated above the podium level on the Second Street Parcel (the “Second Street Building(s)”),
(6) a publicly-accessible observation deck at the top of the Hotel Building,
(7) substantial open space, including publicly-accessible open space, (8) subterranean space, including for vehicle and bicycle parking, and (9) substantial other project features and community benefits as set forth in Section 2.7 and Section 2.8, of the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is also located in the California Coastal Zone. In October 2018, the City adopted a Local Coastal Program Update, Land Use Plan, Final Draft (“2018 Draft LUP”). The 2018 Draft LUP reflects the LUCE and DCP with respect to the Project Site’s development standards. The Project Site is located within Subarea 5, Downtown District of the 2018 Draft LUP; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, Developer filed an application seeking an amendment to the 1992 LUP (“1992 LUP Amendment”) to be consistent with the LUCE, DCP and 2018 Draft LUP policies. The 1992 LUP Amendment, as it has been modified, would add a new policy to the 1992 LUP as follows:

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 8 of 19
If the properties located on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and Second Street commonly referred to as 129 Santa Monica Boulevard, 101 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1327 Ocean Avenue, 1333 Ocean Avenue, 1337 Ocean Avenue (the “Established Large Site”) are redeveloped as a comprehensive project pursuant to a development agreement, then the development standards in Policies 67 and 71 and the corresponding development intensities shown on Map 15 shall not apply to such new project on the Established Large Site, and the project shall instead not exceed 130 feet, with no limitation on the number of stories, and a cumulative maximum 2.95 FAR across the Established Large Site; and
WHEREAS, to aid in the redevelopment of the Property, the City and Developer desire to allow Developer to demolish the existing improvements except for the Queen Anne Landmark and Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark and construct a new mixeduse hotel, residential, and cultural uses project with ground floor retail and subterranean parking; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated on May 18, 2020 for public review and comment a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the “DEIR”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and designated SCH No. 2018121060 to evaluate the Project’s potential environmental impacts. Following the close of a 90-day comment period on August 17, 2020, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report pursuant to CEQA (the “EIR”); and

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 9 of 19
WHEREAS, Developer has paid all necessary costs and fees associated with the City’s processing of the Development Application and the Development Agreement, including the full cost of the City’s preparation of the DEIR and the EIR; and WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the Project is to redevelop the Project Site with a new mixed-use project that includes a full-service hotel, residential apartments including replacement rent-control apartments, market rate and deed-restricted affordable apartments, a new Cultural Uses Campus which includes the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Queen Anne Landmark and Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark with cultural uses, pedestrian-friendly ground floor retail/restaurant uses, subterranean parking, significant open space including a publicly-accessible observation deck and other community benefits consistent with the LUCE, DCP, 1992 LUP as amended, and the 2018 Draft LUP; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a development agreement is appropriate for the proposed development of the Project on the Project Site. The Development Agreement will (1) eliminate uncertainty in planning for the Project and result in the orderly development of the Project, (2) assure installation of necessary improvements on the Project Site, (3) provide for public infrastructure and services appropriate to development of the Project, (4) preserve substantial City discretion in reviewing the Project’s design in accordance with Article 6 of the Development Agreement, (5) secure for the City improvements that benefit the public, (6) ensure the provision of community benefits as envisioned in the LUCE and DCP and (7) otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Statutes were enacted; and

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 10 of 19
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered and approved the impacts and benefits of the development of the Project on the Project Site in accordance with the Development Agreement. Consistent with the LUCE and DCP, the Project will provide a number of significant project features and community benefits as set forth in Sections 2.7 and 2.8 of the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has found that the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the relevant provisions of the City’s General Plan, including the LUCE; the DCP; the 1992 LUP as amended by the 1992 LUP Amendment; and the 2018 Draft LUP; and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2018, Developer filed a demolition permit application for the 101 Santa Monica Boulevard Building (18BLD-5360). On October 1, 2018, Developer filed demolition permit applications for the 1327 Ocean Avenue Building (18BLD-7899), the 1333 Ocean Avenue Rear Structure (18BLD-7918), and the 1337 Ocean Avenue Rear Structure (18BLD-7917). Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.25.040(E), members of the public had a 75-day period from the filing of each demolition permit application to file an application to designate the applicable existing building as a landmark or structure of merit. No applications to designate any of these existing buildings were filed during the applicable 75-day period; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2022, the City's Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the updated Development Application, the EIR, the 1992 LUP

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 11 of 19
Amendment, and the Development Agreement, and at such hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR, approve the 1992 LUP Amendment, and approve the Project including the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11420 stating its intention to establish a pedestrian mall on a portion of First Court alley adjacent to the Project site pursuant to the Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960, California Streets & Highways Code Sections 11000 et seq., and setting a public hearing date of September 27, 2022 for the City Council to make a determination on the establishment of the Pedestrian Mall; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the updated Development Application, the EIR, the 1992 LUP Amendment, and the Development Agreement, and at such hearing the City certified the EIR and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and adopted a resolution approving the 1992 LUP Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A to this ordinance, conforms to the requirements of Government Code sections 65450 et seq. as well as the requirement of Chapter 9.60 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (Development Agreements); and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after consideration of all oral and written testimony presented at the duly noticed meeting of the City Council on July 14 2022, made the following findings (collectively, “the Findings”):

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 12 of 19
Development Agreement Findings

1. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan. The 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) and 2017 Downtown Community Plan (DCP) are the City’s applicable general and specific plans. The Ocean Avenue Project site is located in the 2010 LUCE’s Downtown District and has a Downtown Core General Plan Land Use Designation. Policies in this District are geared primarily toward reinforcing the Downtown as the focus of the City, encouraging a broad mix of uses and new investment in the District that creates dynamic daytime and evening activity, and reinforces the Downtown as the place with the greatest concentration of activity in the City. As outlined in the LUCE, this broad mix of uses in the Downtown includes retail, hotels, office, high-density residential, and entertainment and cultural uses (Goal D.7, Policy D.7.1). With respect to Downtown residential development, units with a diversity of types, forms, sizes, tenure, and affordability for all income levels are encouraged (Policy D7.7). Policy D1.4 also states that new and expanded hotels and other visitor-serving uses are also to be encouraged. General LUCE discussion about the Downtown District recognizes that the Downtown is considered a true urban place where streets are important pedestrian activity spaces, buildings are generally the tallest in the City, and the intensity of development is higher than in the rest of the City (page 1.3.8). The LUCE’s Downtown District also specifically identifies the subject property as one of seven sites in the Downtown District to

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 13 of 19
focus new investment given its accessibility to transit and ability to accommodate mixed-use development, contribute to the pedestrian-oriented environment, and support substantial community benefits; (Goal D1.5). DCP Goal LU1 supports the Downtown Community Plan area as a high quality, mixed-use district offering opportunities for housing for people across the income spectrum, jobs, arts and culture, local-serving retail and community/visitor gathering places. The proposed project is consistent with these LUCE and DCP goals and policies based on the project’s mix of uses comprised of a new full-service hotel, provision of 64 marketrate housing units, 25 deed-restricted affordable housing units, and 19 rentcontrolled housing units, retail and dining, and a full range of community benefits.

These community benefits include the commitment to construct and operate a Cultural Uses Campus open to the public; protection of two designated historic Landmark Buildings; provision of publicly-accessible open space; and a development plan that includes buildings with a range of building heights from 53’ to a maximum height of 130’ while still providing substantial ground level open space on the parcel.

2. The proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the real property is located, in that the subject property is located in the Downtown District that allows multi-family residential uses and a wide range of commercial and community-serving uses. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with LUCE Goal D7, Policy D7.1, and DCP Goal LU1.2 which all seek to create a balanced mix of uses in the Downtown that

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 14 of 19
reinforces the area’s role as having the greatest concentration of activity in the City. DCP Policy LU1.2 supports accommodating the development of uses that support a 17 hours a day/7 days a week environment that meets the needs of businesses and residents; such uses include retail goods and services, food stores, restaurants and cafés, hotels, health clubs, entertainment and comparable uses. The project proposes a full-service hotel, other commercial retail and restaurant uses as part of the project, and a Cultural Uses Campus that will provide opportunities for residents and visitors alike to experience a world-class cultural use venue. Further, the project proposes 100 residential units, of which 25 units will be deed-restricted affordable housing units for households of varying income levels within the Downtown, consistent with LUCE Policy D7.7

3. The proposed Development Agreement is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices, in that it allows for the redevelopment of an underutilized property that would benefit from reinvestment to increase employment, create new transit occupancy taxes paid to the City, and to create a mixed-use project consisting of a full-service hotel, new housing units in the Downtown, and a new Cultural Uses Campus available to the public that is consistent with the 2010 Land and Use Circulation Element’s vision for the area. The proposed project would also preserve and adaptively reuse two designated City Landmark Buildings as part of the Cultural Uses Campus.

Moreover, the project will provide community benefits including affordable housing, publicly-accessible open space on the parcel, and provide monetary fees that

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 15 of 19
would support mobility, construction of affordable housing, parks and recreation, early childhood initiatives, and recycled water infrastructure expansion in the City.

Further, the project seeks to be consistent with the City’s sustainability goals by committing to LEED® Platinum certification with a project designed to achieve 15% less energy than required by California Energy Code, using recycled, non-potable water sources for landscape irrigation and other County-approved uses.

4. The proposed Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare, in that the Development Agreement would allow for the redevelopment of an existing, underutilized property that is consistent with the 2010 LUCE and 2017 DCP vision for the area. The proposed project will be located in an urbanized area and is consistent with other similar improvements in the area and does not have the potential to disrupt the urban environment or cause health or safety problems. The proposed project provides 100 new residential units, of which 25 units will be deed-restricted affordable units. The project will feature commercial uses on the ground floor, a variety open spaces on the property, including an approximately 5,000 SF publicly-accessible rooftop viewing deck. The project will also provide community benefits including the aforementioned deedrestricted affordable housing as well as payment of fees that would support the City’s affordable housing development fund, mobility/transportation, early childhood initiatives, recreation and parks, and community economic equity/opportunity initiatives.

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 16 of 19

5. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property, in that the Development Agreement is contingent upon the review and approval of a specific site plan consistent with recognized urban design principles that reflect the goals and policies of the City of Santa Monica which were established through a long range planning process and are reflected in the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan and the 2017 Downtown Community Plan. Further, the project will be subject to a construction mitigation plan that will be reviewed and approved prior issuance of a building permit for the project.

6. It is estimated that the proposed Development Agreement’s net fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund is estimated at $6.2M ($3.44M net new) during the first year of stabilized operations. This net fiscal impact associated with the project would be a result of the project generating substantial new Transit Occupancy Tax for the City and commercial uses would generate City business license taxes and sales tax. The project would also provide an estimated total of $6,065,000 in monetary contributions that would support the City’s affordable housing development fund, mobility/transportation projects, early childhood initiatives, parks and recreation, and community economic equity/opportunity initiatives.

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 17 of 19

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct, and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings, and recommends approval of the Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 3. Based upon Findings 1-6, the Development Agreement is hereby approved.

SECTION 4. Each and every term and condition of the Development Agreement shall be and is made a part of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and any appendices thereto. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica finds that public necessity, public convenience, and general welfare require that any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of the Development Agreement, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, be repealed or modified to that extent necessary to make fully effective the provisions of the Development Agreement.

SECTION 5. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto, inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 18 of 19
inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 19 of 19

EXHIBIT A

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

[behind this page]

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading Ordinance 7-26-2022 (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) Recording Requested By:

City of Santa Monica
When Recorded Mail To:

City of Santa Monica
Santa Monica City Attorney's Office
1685 Main Street, Third Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Attention: City Attorney
_______________________________________________________________________ Space Above Line For Recorder's Use
No Recording Fee Required
California Government Code Section 27383

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,

BELLE VUE PLAZA,
AND

OCEAN AVENUE PARTNERS, LLC
__________________, 2022

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) Table of Contents
RECITALS ......................................................................................................................................1 ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................................6 ARTICLE 2   DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT .....................................................................11

2.1 General Description ........................................................................................................11

2.2 Principal Components of the Project ..............................................................................11

2.3   No Obligation to Develop ...............................................................................................14

2.4 Vested Rights ..................................................................................................................14

2.5 Authorized Uses ..............................................................................................................17

2.6 Alcoholic Beverage Permits ...........................................................................................21

2.7 Significant Project Features ............................................................................................21

2.8 Community Benefits .......................................................................................................29

2.9 Parking ............................................................................................................................45

2.10 Design .............................................................................................................................47

2.11 Contract with City ...........................................................................................................49

2.12 Coastal Commission Review ..........................................................................................49 ARTICLE 3   CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................50

3.1 Construction Mitigation Plan ..........................................................................................50

3.2 Construction Hours .........................................................................................................50

3.3 Outside Building Permit Issuance Date ..........................................................................50

3.4 Construction Period ........................................................................................................51

3.5 Damage or Destruction ...................................................................................................51

3.6 Final Determination ........................................................................................................51 ARTICLE 4 PROJECT FEES, EXACTIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES
AND CONDITIONS .............................................................................................52

4.1 Fees, Exactions, Mitigation Measures and Conditions ...................................................52

4.2 Conditions on Modifications...........................................................................................52

4.3 Implementation of Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval ...........................52 ARTICLE 5   EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON CITY LAWS AND REGULATIONS .............53

5.1 Development Standards for the Project Site; Existing Regulations................................53

5.2 Permitted Subsequent Code Changes .............................................................................54

5.3 Common Set of Existing Regulations .............................................................................55

5.4 Conflicting Enactments ...................................................................................................55

5.5 Timing of Development ..................................................................................................56

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA)

5.6 1992 LUP Amendment Application to Coastal Commission .........................................56 ARTICLE 6   DESIGN APPROVAL ...........................................................................................56

6.1 Design Approval .............................................................................................................56

6.2 Conceptual Design Review .............................................................................................58

6.3 Notification to Design Review Bodies ...........................................................................58

6.4 Expiration of Design Approvals .....................................................................................58

6.5 Concurrent Processing of One Foundation Only Permit ................................................58

6.6 Concurrent Application to California Coastal Commission ...........................................58 ARTICLE 7   CITY TECHNICAL PERMITS .............................................................................59

7.1 Definitions.......................................................................................................................59

7.2 Diligent Action by City ...................................................................................................59

7.3 Conditions for Diligent Action by the City .....................................................................59

7.4 Duration of Technical City Permits ................................................................................60 ARTICLE 8   AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION..............................................................61

8.1 Amendment and Modification of Development Agreement ..........................................61 ARTICLE 9   TERM ....................................................................................................................61

9.1 Effective Date .................................................................................................................61

9.2 Term ................................................................................................................................61 ARTICLE 10 PERIODIC REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................62

10.1 City Review ....................................................................................................................62

10.2 Evidence of Good Faith Compliance ..............................................................................62

10.3 Information to be Provided to Developer .......................................................................62

10.4 Notice of Breach; Cure Rights ........................................................................................62

10.5 Failure of Periodic Review .............................................................................................62

10.6 Termination of Development Agreement .......................................................................63

10.7 City Cost Recovery .........................................................................................................63 ARTICLE 11      DEFAULT ..........................................................................................................63

11.1 Notice and Cure ..............................................................................................................63

11.2 Remedies for Monetary Default ......................................................................................64

11.3 Remedies for Non-Monetary Default .............................................................................64

11.4 Modification or Termination of Agreement by City .......................................................66

11.5 Cessation of Rights and Obligations ...............................................................................66

11.6 Completion of Improvements .........................................................................................67

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) ARTICLE 12  MORTGAGEES ....................................................................................................67

12.1 Encumbrances on the Project Site...................................................................................67 ARTICLE 13  TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS ..................................................................69

13.1 Transfers and Assignments .............................................................................................69

13.2 No Release Upon Transfer if Transferor Remains Owner ..............................................70

13.3 Assignment to Property Transferee ................................................................................70 ARTICLE 14  INDEMNITY TO CITY ........................................................................................70

14.1 Indemnity ........................................................................................................................70

14.2 City’s Right to Defense ...................................................................................................71 ARTICLE 15  GENERAL PROVISIONS ....................................................................................71

15.1 Notices ............................................................................................................................71

15.2 Entire Agreement; Conflicts ...........................................................................................72

15.3 Binding Effect .................................................................................................................72

15.4 Agreement Not for Benefit of Third Parties ...................................................................72

15.5 No Partnership or Joint Venture .....................................................................................72

15.6 Estoppel Certificates .......................................................................................................72

15.7 Time ................................................................................................................................73

15.8 Excusable Delays ............................................................................................................73

15.9 Governing Law ...............................................................................................................74

15.10 Cooperation in Event of Legal Challenge to Agreement ................................................74

15.11 Attorneys’ Fees ...............................................................................................................74

15.12 Recordation .....................................................................................................................75

15.13 No Waiver .......................................................................................................................75

15.14 Construction of this Agreement ......................................................................................75

15.15 Other Governmental Approvals ......................................................................................75

15.16 Jurisdiction and Venue ....................................................................................................76

15.17 Exhibits ...........................................................................................................................76

15.18 Counterpart Signatures ....................................................................................................77

15.19 Certificate of Performance ..............................................................................................77

15.20 Interests of Developer .....................................................................................................77

15.21 Operating Memoranda ....................................................................................................78

15.22 Acknowledgments, Agreements and Assurance on the Part of Developer ....................78

15.23 Waiver of Protest ............................................................................................................78

15.24 Not a Public Dedication ..................................................................................................79

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA)

15.25 Other Agreements ...........................................................................................................79

15.26 Severability and Termination ..........................................................................................79 Exhibit “A” Legal Description of Project Site
Exhibit “B” Project Plans
Exhibit “C” SMMC Article 9 (Planning and Zoning)
Exhibit “D” Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval Exhibit “E-1” Conditions of Approval to Dispense Alcohol at Restaurants Exhibit “E-2” Hotel Conditions of Approval to Dispense Alcohol Exhibit “F” Bonded Scope of Preservation Work
Exhibit “G” Publicly-Accessible Open Space
Exhibit “H” Transportation Demand Management Plan
Exhibit “I-1” Local Hiring Program for Construction
Exhibit “I-2” Local Hiring Program for Permanent Employment Exhibit “J” Construction Mitigation Plan
Exhibit “K” Permitted Fees and Exactions
Exhibit “L” Design Review Diagram
Exhibit “M” Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement Exhibit “N” Form of First Court Alley Airspace License and Pedestrian Mall Maintenance Agreement
Exhibit “O” Form of Re-Routed First Court Alley Easement Agreement Exhibit “P” Form of Deed Restriction for Affordable Housing Units

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement (“Agreement”), dated ____________, 2022, is entered into by and between BELLE VUE PLAZA, a California limited partnership, and OCEAN AVENUE PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (collectively the “Developer”) and the CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a municipal corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Santa Monica (the “City”), with reference to the following facts:

RECITALS
A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and Chapter 9.60 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (collectively, the “Development Agreement Statutes”), the City is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons or entities having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such real property.

B. Developer is the owner of approximately 82,570 square feet of land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 101 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1337 Ocean Avenue, 1333 Ocean Avenue, 1327 Ocean Avenue and 129 Santa Monica Boulevard, as more particularly described below in this Recital B and in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the “Project Site”). The Project Site consists of:
(1) approximately 52,570 square feet of land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 101 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1337 Ocean Avenue, 1333 Ocean Avenue, 1327 Ocean Avenue (collectively the “Ocean Avenue Parcel”) which consists of:
(i) the land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 101 Santa Monica Boulevard (and also commonly known as 103 Santa Monica Boulevard, 105 Santa Monica Boulevard, 107 Santa Monica Boulevard, 109 Santa Monica Boulevard, 111 Santa Monica Boulevard, 113 Santa Monica Boulevard, 115 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1355 Ocean Avenue and 1357 Ocean Avenue) that is currently improved with a two-story mixed-use commercial/residential structure with a rooftop penthouse apartment (the “101 Santa Monica Boulevard Building”) and surface parking, (ii) the land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 1337 Ocean Avenue that is currently improved with (i) a two-story building that was originally built in 1926, is a City-designated Landmark (LC-04-LM-005) and is in commercial use (the “Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark”), a detached one-story rear structure that is in commercial use (the “1337 Ocean Avenue Rear Structure”), and surface parking,
(iii) the land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 1333 Ocean Avenue that is currently improved with a two-story building that was originally built in 1906, is a City-designated Landmark (LC-01LM-001) and is in commercial use (the “Queen Anne Landmark”), a separate two-story rear structure that is in

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 2 commercial use and is connected to the 1333 Ocean Avenue Landmark by an unenclosed catwalk and staircase (the “1333 Ocean Avenue Rear Structure”), and surface parking and (iv) the land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 1327 Ocean Avenue that is currently improved with a two-story building that is in commercial use (the “1327 Ocean Avenue Building”) and surface parking; and (2) approximately 30,000 square feet of land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 129 Santa Monica Boulevard (the “Second Street Parcel”) that is currently improved with surface parking.

C. The City has included the Project Site within the Downtown Core land use designation under the City’s 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element of its General Plan (the “LUCE”). LUCE Policy D1.5 designates the Project Site as one of seven sites in the Downtown District to focus new investment given its accessibility to transit and ability to accommodate mixed-use development, contribute to the pedestrian-oriented environment, and support substantial community benefits. The LUCE did not establish maximum building height limits, floor area ratios (“FAR”), or other specific development standards (e.g., setbacks and step backs) for new buildings within the Downtown Core designation; instead, the LUCE deferred such standards to a future Downtown specific plan.

D. On February 28, 2013, Developer filed an application for a Development Agreement (13DEV-004), pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section

9.60.020 (the “Development Application”). The Development Application proposes a mixeduse project with a hotel, residences, a cultural uses campus, ground floor pedestrian-oriented restaurant and retail uses and subterranean parking. The originally-filed plans (the “2013 Plans”) proposed, among other things, 125 hotel rooms, 22 residential condominium units, 19 replacement rental apartments, 5 affordable rental apartments, a cultural uses campus including the preservation and adaptive re-use of the Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark and Queen Anne Landmark, ground floor restaurants and retail, an observation deck, a maximum height of 244 feet and a 4.0 FAR. As further described below, the Development Application has been revised and refined since the initial filing but has always included hotel, residential, cultural uses, pedestrian-oriented retail/restaurant uses, and subterranean parking, as is more fully described in this Agreement.

E. On August 5, 2013, the Architectural Review Board held a public hearing to preliminarily review and provide feedback on the 2013 Plans.

F. In August 2017, the City adopted the Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”), a specific plan governing the Downtown including the Project Site. Consistent with the LUCE, the Project Site is located within the Established Large Site (“ELS”) Overlay designation with the Ocean Avenue Parcel also having the Ocean Transition designation and the Second Street Parcel also having the Bayside Conservation designation. The ELS Overlay is provided for three sites in the Downtown that the DCP indicated have the potential to accommodate significant new development and provide significant community benefits. The ELS Overlay designation allows any project on the Project Site to request approval for development up to 130 feet in height and a

4.0 FAR subject to the project being processed through a development agreement, as well as

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 3 compliance with other specified requirements. Table 2A.4 of the DCP lists three “preferred” community benefits for a project on the Project Site: affordable housing, cultural institution, and historic preservation, all of which are included in the Project.

G. After adoption of the DCP, the 2013 Plans were revised to conform with the DCP.

In comparison to the 2013 Plans, revised plans filed in 2018 (the “2018 Plans”), included, among other things, elimination of the residential condominiums and replacement with 100% rental apartments (including more affordable housing), reduced density (2.95 FAR), a reduced hotel program, and reduced height (maximum height of 130 feet).

H. On February 20, 2018, the Architectural Review Board held a public hearing to preliminarily review and provide feedback on the 2018 Plans.

I. On March 12, 2018, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing to preliminarily review and provide feedback on the 2018 Plans.

J. On May 2, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider, review and provide preliminary comments on the revised design concept, and to identify potential community benefits for consideration (commonly referred to as a “float up” discussion). The Planning Commission was generally supportive of the overall design concept, including the relationship between building height and open space, the emphasis on the pedestrian experience, and the proposed cultural uses campus as a community benefit. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council proceed with Development Agreement discussions.

K. On June 12, 2018, the City Council held a “float-up” public hearing to preliminarily review and provide feedback on the 2018 Plans. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission’s May 2, 2018 recommendation and directed City staff to initiate the development agreement negotiations and review process for the Project.

L. The project (the “Project”) is more specifically described in this Agreement and now includes, among other things, the following components:
(1) a full-service hotel building located in the central area of the Ocean Avenue Parcel (the “Hotel Building”),
(2) a cultural uses campus that is located north of the Hotel Building on the Ocean Avenue Parcel and is comprised of a new building (the “Cultural Uses Building”) and the relocated Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark and Queen Anne Landmark, which would be rehabilitated for adaptive reuse as part of the cultural uses campus, and open space (the “Cultural Uses Campus”),
(3) a building with restaurant/retail uses that is located near the corner of Ocean Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard on the Ocean Avenue Parcel (the “Corner Building”),

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 4 (4) a mixed-use residential apartment building with ground floor retail/restaurant space located on the Ocean Avenue Parcel near the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and First Court Alley (the “Santa Monica Boulevard Building”), (5) a mixed-use building(s) with retail/restaurant space located on the ground floor/podium level and residential apartments located within three separate forms/structures situated above the podium level on the Second Street Parcel (the “Second Street Building(s)”), (6) a publicly-accessible observation deck at the top of the Hotel Building, (7) substantial open space, including publicly-accessible open space, (8) subterranean space, including for vehicle and bicycle parking, and (9) substantial other project features and community benefits as set forth in Section 2.7 and Section 2.8, herein.

The Project is more particularly shown on the conceptual Project Plans dated July 14, 2022 and attached hereto as Exhibit “B” (the “Project Plans”).

M. The Project Site is also located in the California Coastal Zone. In October 2018, the City adopted a Local Coastal Program Update, Land Use Plan, Final Draft (“2018 Draft LUP”). The 2018 Draft LUP reflects the LUCE and DCP with respect to the Project Site’s development standards. The Project Site is located within Subarea 5, Downtown District of the 2018 Draft LUP.

N. On December 15, 2020, Developer filed an application seeking an amendment to the 1992 LUP (“1992 LUP Amendment”) to be consistent with the DCP and 2018 Draft LUP policies. The 1992 LUP Amendment, as it has been modified, would add a new policy to the 1992 LUP as follows:

If the properties located on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and Second Street commonly referred to as 129 Santa Monica Boulevard, 101 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1327 Ocean Avenue, 1333 Ocean Avenue, 1337 Ocean Avenue (the “Established Large Site”) are redeveloped as a comprehensive project pursuant to a development agreement, then the development standards in Policies 67 and 71 and the corresponding development intensities shown on Map 15 shall not apply to such new project on the Established Large Site, and the project shall instead not exceed 130 feet, with no limitation on the number of stories, and a cumulative maximum 2.95 FAR across the Established Large Site.

O. To aid in the redevelopment of the Property, the City and Developer desire to allow Developer to demolish the existing improvements except for the Queen Anne Landmark and Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark and construct a new mixed-use hotel, residential, and cultural uses project with ground floor retail and subterranean parking.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 5 P. The City prepared and circulated on May 18, 2020 for public review and comment a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the “DEIR”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and designated SCH No. 2018121060 to evaluate the Project’s potential environmental impacts. Following the close of a 90-day comment period on August 17, 2020, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report pursuant to CEQA (the “EIR”).

Q. Developer has paid all necessary costs and fees associated with the City’s processing of the Development Application and this Agreement, including the full cost of the City’s preparation of the DEIR and the EIR.

R. The primary purpose of the Project is to redevelop the Project Site with a new mixed-use project that includes a full-service hotel, residential apartments including replacement rent-control apartments, market rate and deed-restricted affordable apartments, a new Cultural Uses Campus which includes the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Queen Anne Landmark and Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark with cultural uses, pedestrian-friendly ground floor retail/restaurant uses, subterranean parking, significant open space including a publiclyaccessible observation deck and other community benefits consistent with the LUCE, DCP, 1992 LUP as amended, and the 2018 Draft LUP. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement in conformance with the Development Agreement Statutes in order to achieve the development of the Project on the Project Site.

S. The City Council has determined that a development agreement is appropriate for the proposed development of the Project on the Project Site. This Agreement will (1) eliminate uncertainty in planning for the Project and result in the orderly development of the Project, (2) assure installation of necessary improvements on the Project Site, (3) provide for public infrastructure and services appropriate to development of the Project, (4) preserve substantial City discretion in reviewing the Project’s design in accordance with Article 6 of this Agreement, (5) secure for the City improvements that benefit the public, (6) ensure the provision of community benefits as envisioned in the LUCE and DCP and (7) otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Statutes were enacted.

T. This Agreement is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered and approved the impacts and benefits of the development of the Project on the Project Site in accordance with this Agreement. Consistent with the LUCE and DCP, the Project will provide a number of significant project features and community benefits as set forth in Sections 2.7 and 2.8 of this Agreement.

U. The City Council has found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the relevant provisions of the City’s General Plan, including the LUCE; the DCP; the 1992 LUP as amended by the 1992 LUP Amendment; and the 2018 Draft LUP.

V. On March 23, 2018, Developer filed a demolition permit application for the 101 Santa Monica Boulevard Building (18BLD-5360). On October 1, 2018, Developer filed demolition permit applications for the 1327 Ocean Avenue Building (18BLD-7899), the 1333 Ocean Avenue Rear Structure (18BLD-7918), and the 1337 Ocean Avenue Rear Structure

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 6 (18BLD-7917). Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.25.040(E), members of the public had a 75-day period from the filing of each demolition permit application to file an application to designate the applicable existing building as a landmark or structure of merit. No applications to designate any of these existing buildings were filed during the applicable 75-day period.

W. On May 18, 2022, the City's Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the updated Development Application, the EIR, the 1992 LUP Amendment, and this Agreement, and at such hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR, approve the 1992 LUP Amendment, and approve the Project including this Agreement.

X. On May 24, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11420 stating its intention to establish a pedestrian mall on a portion of First Court alley adjacent to the Project site pursuant to the Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960, California Streets & Highways Code Sections 11000 et seq., and setting a public hearing date of September 27, 2022 for the City Council to make a determination on the establishment of the Pedestrian Mall.

Y. On July 14, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the updated Development Application, the EIR, the 1992 LUP Amendment, and this Agreement, and at such hearing the City certified the EIR and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, adopted Resolution ______ approving the 1992 LUP Amendment, and introduced for first reading Ordinance No. _____, approving this Agreement.

Z. On July 26, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. ______, approving this Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration for the covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, the Parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1

DEFINITIONS
Capitalized terms not defined below shall have the meanings set forth in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The terms defined below, whether capitalized or not, have the meanings in this Agreement as set forth below unless the Agreement expressly requires otherwise:

1.1 “1992 LUP” means the Coastal Land Use Plan in effect as of the Effective Date unless otherwise indicated in this Agreement.

1.2 “2018 Draft LUP” means the Local Coastal Program Update Land Use Plan Final Draft, October 2018 adopted by the City Council which, as of the Effective Date, has not been certified by the California Coastal Commission.

1.3 “30% Income Household” means 30% Income Household as defined in the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 7 1.4 “50% Income Household” means 50% Income Household as defined in the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction.

1.5 “80% Income Household” means 80% Income Household as defined in the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction.

1.6 "Affordable Housing Deed Restriction” has the meaning set forth in Section

2.7.2. 1.7 “Affordable Housing Units” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.7.2.

1.8 “Agreement” means this Development Agreement.

1.9 “ARB” means the City’s Architectural Review Board.

1.10 “Building” or “Buildings” means, individually or collectively as the circumstances may require, the Corner Building, the Santa Monica Boulevard Building, the Hotel Building, the Cultural Uses Building, the Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark, the Queen Anne Landmark and the Second Street Building(s) with subterranean Floor Area and subterranean parking to be developed on the Project Site as well as the tunnels below First Court Alley connecting the subterranean garages on the Project Site and the Santa Monica Boulevard Building(s) projection above First Court Alley. This Agreement’s referring to one or more structures as a “Building” does not affect the determination as to whether the structure is one or more buildings under the City’s SMMC, including zoning, or building codes.

1.11 “Building Height” means the vertical distance at any point in a given plane measured from the Average Natural Grade (ANG). Notwithstanding Section 9.04.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Parties agree the ANG for the Project Site (including both the Ocean Avenue Parcel and Second Street Parcel) is 77’-0”.

1.12 “Building Permit” means any permit required by SMMC section 8.08.050(a) and any successors thereto, including, without limitation, a foundation only permit.

1.13 “City Council” means the City Council of the City of Santa Monica, or its designee.

1.14 “City Manager” means the City Manager or his or her designee.

1.15 “City Parties” mean the City, its City Council, boards and commissions, departments, officers, agents, employees, volunteers and other representatives.

1.16 “Certificate of Occupancy” means either temporary or permanent Certificate of Occupancy, unless otherwise expressly specified in this Agreement.

1.17 “Community Development Director” means the Community Development Department Director of the City of Santa Monica, or his or her designee.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 8 1.18 “Cultural Facilities” means the facilities within the Cultural Uses Campus engaged in activities to serve and promote aesthetic and educational interest in the community that are open to the public on a regular basis. This classification includes spaces for display or preservation of objects of interest in the sciences or arts (including architecture); libraries; museums; historical sites; and art galleries. It does not include (i) schools or institutions of higher education providing curricula of a general nature; however this statement does not preclude students from accessing the Cultural Facilities in connection with school-related research or educational activities, or (ii) performing arts centers for theater, music and dance, however this statement does not preclude performing arts activities from occurring at the Cultural Facilities as part of any arts-related programming. Cultural Facilities use includes uses accessory to the Cultural Facilities uses consistent with SMMC Section 9.52.020.2490 including, without limitation (collectively referenced herein as “Cultural Accessory Uses”): (a) food and beverage service that may be open to the general public, including Restaurants, Full-Service and Restaurants, Limited Service & Take-Out as defined in SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(8)(b) and (c) respectively with Outdoor Dining and Seating Area as defined in SMMC Section

9.51.030(B)(8)(e); and (b) General Retail Sales, Small-scale as defined in SMMC Section

9.51.030(B)(22)(b).

1.19 “Days” means calendar days.

1.20 “DCP” has the meaning set forth in Recital F.

1.21 “Design Review” means the design review process articulated for the Project in Article 6.

1.22 “Discretionary Approvals” are actions which require the exercise of judgment or a discretionary decision, and which contemplate and authorize the imposition of revisions or additional conditions, by the City, including any board, commission, or department of the City and any officer or employee of the City. Discretionary Approvals do not include Ministerial Approvals.

1.23 “Effective Date” has the meaning set forth in Section 9.1 below.

1.24 "Floor Area" has the meaning as defined in Section 9.52.020.0870 of the Zoning Ordinance.

1.25 “Floor Area Ratio" or FAR” means floor area ratio as defined in Section

9.52.020.0880 of the Zoning Ordinance.

1.26 “General Plan” or “City General Plan” means the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica, and all elements thereof including the LUCE, as of the Effective Date, unless otherwise indicated in this Agreement.

1.27 “Hotel Uses” means Hotel uses as defined in SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(15)(b) and uses accessory to the Hotel uses consistent with SMMC Section 9.52.020.2490 including, without limitation, amenities such as: (a) spa/fitness/personal services uses that may be open to the general public, including fitness centers that qualify as Personal Services, Physical Training as defined in Section 1.39, Commercial Entertainment and Recreation, Large- and Small-Scale

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 9 Facilities uses as defined in SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(7)(d) and (e), and/or uses that qualify as General Personal Services as defined in SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(21)(a); (b) meeting/conference and banquet space that may be open to the general public; (c) food and beverage service that may be open to the general public, including Restaurants, Full-Service, Restaurants, Limited Service & Take-Out, and Bar/Night Club/Lounge as defined in SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(8)(b),(c), and (a) respectively with Outdoor Dining and Seating Area as defined in SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(8)(e); and (d) a sundry shop that may be open to the general public, including General Retail Sales, Small-scale as defined in SMMC Section

9.51.030(B)(22)(b), Convenience Market and General Market uses as defined in SMMC Section

9.51.030(B)(10)(a) and/or (c), respectively.

1.28 “Including” means “including, but not limited to.”

1.29 “Landmarks Commission” means the City’s Landmarks Commission.

1.30 "LEED® Rating System" means the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Green Building Rating System known as “LEED®v4”.

1.31 “Legal Action” means any action in law or equity.

1.32 “Life of the Project” shall mean the period commencing on the date the final certificate of occupancy is issued for the Project and ending with the useful life of the Project; provided, however, that if the Project is damaged or destroyed and cannot be rebuilt in accordance with the development standards permitted in this Agreement, then the Life of the Project shall be deemed to have ended as of the date of such damage or destruction of the Project. For purposes herein, if a building within the Project is issued a certificate of occupancy separate from another building within the Project, then the Life of the Project shall be determined for each separate building for which a final certificate of occupancy has been issued.

1.33 “Maximum Floor Area” means 316,750 square feet of Floor Area.

1.34 “Ministerial Approvals” mean any action which merely requires the City (including any board, commission, or department of the City and any officer or employee of the City), in the process of approving or disapproving a permit or other entitlement, to determine whether there has been compliance with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, or conditions of approval. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the exercise of duties and/or professional judgment by any City official referenced in SMMC Article 7 (Public Works) and Article 8 (Building Regulations), as amended from time to time, shall be considered a Ministerial Approval.

1.35 Moderate Income Household means Moderate Income Household as defined in SMMC Section 9.64.020(T).

1.36 “Parties” mean both the City and Developer and “Party” means either the City or Developer, as applicable.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 10 1.37 “Pedestrian Mall” means the portion of First Court Alley that is established as a pedestrian mall by the City, acting in its sole and absolute discretion, in accordance with the Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960 (Streets and Highways Code sections 11000 et seq.).

1.38 “Person” means an individual, partnership, limited partnership, trust, estate, association, corporation, limited liability company, or other entity, domestic or foreign.

1.39 “Personal Services, Physical Training” means gyms, exercise clubs, or studios offering martial arts, physical exercise, yoga training and similar types of instruction to classes and groups and having less than 5,000 square feet of Floor Area. This classification also includes exclusively youth-serving studios offering performing arts, dance, martial arts, physical exercise, and similar types of instruction to classes and groups.

1.40 “Project” has the meaning set forth in Recital L.

1.41 “Project Plans” mean the plans for the Project that are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit “B”.

1.42 “Rental Housing Units” means the residential rental units in the Second Street Building(s) and the Santa Monica Boulevard Building.

1.43 “Residential Amenities and Accessory Uses” means amenities and accessory uses for residents and their guests, including but not limited to lobbies, reception areas/desk, resident/visitors lounges, pool/spa/jacuzzi and associated deck areas, property management/administrative/leasing offices, bicycle parking, dog wash facilities, mail/package delivery facilities and storage, exercise/fitness rooms, recreation rooms/areas, and screening rooms.

1.44 “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards” means the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017), revised by Anne E. Grimmer.

1.45 “SMMC” means the Santa Monica Municipal Code, including the Zoning Ordinance, in effect on the Effective Date unless specifically stated to refer to the Santa Monica Municipal Code as it may be in effect at some other time.

1.46 “Subterranean Space” means all space in the Project below the ground floor as shown on the Project Plans attached as Exhibit “B”.

1.47 “Transfer” means the transfer of title to property by the execution of the deed or other instrument.

1.48 “Zoning Ordinance” means the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance (Chapters 9.01 to 9.68 of the SMMC) in effect on the Effective Date, set forth in its entirety as part of Exhibit “C” (Planning and Zoning).

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 11 ARTICLE 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

2.1 General Description. The Project includes all aspects of the proposed development of the Project Site as more particularly described in this Agreement and on the Project Plans, which present the Project in concept. If there is a conflict or inconsistency between the text of this Agreement and the Project Plans, the Project Plans will prevail; provided, however, that omissions from the Project Plans shall not constitute a conflict or inconsistency with the text of this Agreement. Detailed plans and specifications for the construction of the Project (collectively, the “Construction Plans and Specifications”), including, without limitation, structural plans, off-site improvement plans, and working drawings, shall be prepared by Developer subsequent to the Effective Date based upon the Project Plans, and nothing herein shall be interpreted by the Developer as a pre-approval of the Construction Plans and Specifications by the City Building Official or City Engineer. The Project includes the following components, which are further described below in this Agreement:

Use Units/Floor Area
Hotel 120 Rooms
(See Section 2.2(b)(2))
Residential 100 units
(See Section 2.2(e))
Retail/Restaurant/Commercial
Uses
36,110 square feet
(See Section 2.5.1(h))
Cultural Uses Campus 33,725-35,500 square feet
(See Section 2.8.3)
Total Floor Area 316,750 (248,570 square feet above-grade and 68,180 square feet of below grade)
(See Section 2.2(f))
Open Space Total: 41,112 square feet, including 20,556 square feet on the ground level. (See Section 2.2(i))
Publicly-Accessible Open Space: Approximately
12,000 square feet at the ground level and 4,800
square-foot Publicly-Accessible Observation Deck.
(See Exhibit “G”)
Parking 285 vehicle parking spaces, bicycle parking per Condition 27 of Section B of Exhibit “D” and Exhibit
“H”.
(See Section 2.9)

2.2 Principal Components of the Project. The Project consists of the following principal components, as well as the other components delineated in the Project Plans, all of

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 12 which are hereby approved by the City subject to the other provisions of this Agreement:
(a) Except for the Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark and Queen Anne Landmark, demolition of all existing structures and surface parking; (b) Ocean Avenue Parcel Buildings. On the Ocean Avenue Parcel:
(1) Construction of a Cultural Uses Campus, including the relocation and rehabilitation/restoration of the Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark and Queen Anne Landmark in accordance with Section 2.8.2 and construction of a new multi-story Cultural Uses Building which connects to the Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark, Queen Anne Landmark and Hotel Building, and open space. Use regulations for the Cultural Use Campus are detailed in Section 2.5 below;
(2) Construction of the new multi-story Hotel Building with Hotel Uses, including 120 hotel rooms, ground floor commercial uses as further described in Section 2.5 below and a Publicly-Accessible Observation Deck as further described in Section

2.8.4 below,
(3) Construction of the new multi-story Corner Building with commercial uses as further described in Section 2.5 below, (4) Construction of the new multi-story Santa Monica Boulevard Building with residential apartment uses above the ground floor and ground floor commercial uses as further described in Section 2.5 below, and
(c) Second Street Parcel Buildings. On the Second Street Parcel, construction of the new multi-story Second Street Building(s) consisting of residential apartment uses above the ground floor, with a 2nd Floor residential deck that extends above/across First Court Alley in accordance with Exhibit “N” (Form of First Court Alley License and Pedestrian Mall Maintenance Agreement), and ground floor commercial uses as further described in Section

2.5 below;
(d) Subterranean Garage. Construction of a multi-level subterranean parking garage on both the Ocean Avenue Parcel and Second Street Parcel with below-grade tunnel connections underneath First Court Alley in accordance with Exhibit “N” (Form of First Court Alley License and Pedestrian Mall Maintenance Agreement). The total below-grade Floor Area in the subterranean garage is 68,180 square feet. Use regulations for the subterranean parking garage are detailed in Section 2.5 below;
(e) Residential Unit Total. Within the Santa Monica Boulevard Building and Second Street Building(s) a total of one-hundred (100) Rental Housing Units. The Rental Housing Units will include Replacement Units and Affordable Housing Units pursuant to Sections 2.7.1, 2.7.2 and 2.8.1, and the market-rate Rental Housing Units will comply with the unit mix requirements in SMMC Section 9.10.070(C)(1)(b);

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 13 (f) Floor Area Total. Of the Project’s total Maximum Floor Area of 316,750 square feet, a maximum of 248,570 square feet of above-grade Floor Area combined on the Ocean Avenue Parcel and Second Street Parcel;
(g) Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Access. Improvement of the Project Site for enhanced pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access to/from the Project, including closure of the existing curb cut along Ocean Avenue, creation of a curb cut along Second Street, creation of the Pedestrian Mall pursuant to Division 13, Part 1 of the Streets and Highways Code and Section 2.2(h), and dedication of a public right-of-way easement on the north side of the Second Street Parcel as further described in Section 2.13 and Exhibit “O” (Form of Re-Routed First Court Alley Easement Agreement);
(h) Improvements to First Court Alley. Improvements to First Court Alley, including (i) improvement of First Court Alley with open space, in accordance with Exhibit “N” (Form of First Court Alley License and Pedestrian Mall Maintenance Agreement), that enhances pedestrian access to/from/through the Project, provides additional opportunities for enhancing the pedestrian environment, including with outdoor seating/dining, (ii) retention of vehicular access for emergency and service vehicles on First Court Alley, and (iii) retention of the existing utilities within First Court Alley; and
(i) Open Space. Improvement of the Project Site with open space pursuant to DCP Section 9.10.080(C) including a minimum of 41,112 square feet of open space comprised of (a) a minimum of 20,556 square feet at the ground level (including PubliclyAccessible Open Space in accordance with Section 2.8.4 below, the Pedestrian Mall area and up to 4,940 square feet of outdoor dining area) and (b) the remaining open space located anywhere in the Project Site including on roof decks or balconies, including a Publicly-Accessible Observation Deck as described in Section 2.8.4 below. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any area of the Pedestrian Mall directly adjacent to Santa Monica Boulevard constituting part of the existing adjoining public sidewalk, and continuing east and west of the Pedestrian Mall along Santa Monica Boulevard shall not be considered as open space, and shall be deemed as a public sidewalk, fully accessible to all pedestrians consistent with customary use of a public sidewalk in the City.
(j) Authorization of Pedestrian Mall. Developer acknowledges, understands, and agrees that any references to the Pedestrian Mall in this Agreement are predicated upon authorization of the Pedestrian Mall by the City, acting in its sole and absolute discretion, in accordance with the Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960 (Streets and Highways Code sections 11000 et seq.). Developer further acknowledges that, if the Pedestrian Mall is not authorized by the City Council, City shall have no obligation to execute the First Court Alley License and Pedestrian Mall Maintenance Agreement, the form of which is included in Exhibit “N”.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 14 2.3 No Obligation to Develop.

2.3.1 Except as specifically provided herein:
(a) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require Developer to proceed with the construction of the Project; provided, however, that if Developer elects to proceed with any portion of the Project, then (i) Developer shall substantially complete the Cultural Uses Campus prior to issuance of a temporary or final certificate of occupancy for the Hotel Building and (ii) Developer shall not be entitled to receive a final certificate of occupancy for any Building in the Project until and unless all of the Buildings constituting the Project have been substantially completed within the time period specified, below. (b) Once Developer proceeds with construction of any portion of the Project, Developer shall diligently prosecute to completion all of the Buildings in the Project with the intent to substantially complete the entire Project within four (4) years of commencing development of any portion of the Project. For purposes herein, "commencing development of any portion of the Project” means the issuance of a Building Permit but not a demolition only permit and “substantially complete” means completion to a point that a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued. In the event that Developer fails to substantially complete all Buildings within the Project within four (4) years of commencing development of any portion of the Project, Developer and City shall meet and confer to establish a schedule for substantial completion. For the avoidance of doubt, any proposed changes to the Project, including changes proposed after commencement of construction of the Project, shall be governed by this Agreement including Sections 2.4.2 (Minor Modifications) and 2.4.3 (Major Modifications). (c) Except as provided in this Agreement, the decision to proceed or to forbear or delay in proceeding with construction of the Project shall be in Developer’s sole discretion.

2.3.2 Failure to Proceed. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, failure by Developer to proceed with construction of the Project shall not result in any loss or diminution of development rights, except upon expiration of Developer’s Vested Rights pursuant to this Agreement, or the termination of this Agreement.

2.3.3 Mitigation Measures. Notwithstanding any provision of this Section 2.3 to the contrary, Developer shall be required to implement all mitigation measures and conditions of approval required under this Agreement in accordance with and at the time specified in Exhibit “D” and may be subject to all remedies specified in this Agreement for the failure to implement these mitigation measures and conditions of approval as and when so required.

2.4 Vested Rights.

2.4.1 Approval of Project Plans. The City hereby approves the Project Plans as the conceptual scope of the Project. The City shall maintain a complete copy of the Project Plans, stamped “Approved” by the City, in the Office of the City Clerk, and Developer shall maintain a complete copy of the Project Plans, stamped “Approved” by the City, in its offices or

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 15 at the Project site. The Project Plans to be maintained by the City and Developer shall be in a half-size set.

2.4.2 Minor Modifications to Project. Developer with the approval of the Community Development Director, may make minor changes to the Project or Project Plans (“Minor Modifications”) without amending this Agreement; provided that the Community Development Director makes the following specific findings that the Minor Modifications: (i) are consistent with the Project’s approvals as approved by the City Council; (ii) are consistent with the provisions, purposes and goals of this Agreement; (iii) are not detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience or general welfare; and (iv) will not significantly and adversely affect the significant project features (Section 2.7) and/or community benefits (Section 2.8) associated with the Project, unless expressly authorized in Section 2.7 or Section 2.8. The Community Development Director shall notify the Planning Commission and City Council in writing of any Minor Modifications approved pursuant to this Section 2.4.2. Any proposed change which the Community Development Director denies as not qualifying for a Minor Modification based on the above findings must be processed as a Major Modification.

2.4.3 Modifications Requiring Amendment to this Agreement. Developer shall not make any “Major Modifications” (defined below) to the Project without first amending this Agreement to permit such Major Modifications. A “Major Modification” means the following:
(a) Reduction of any ground floor setback of the Project, as depicted on the Project Plans, if by such reduction the applicable setback would be less than the Building Frontage Line requirements in Section 9.10.060(D) of the DCP as of the Effective Date; (b) Any change in use not consistent with the permitted uses defined in Section 2.5 below;
(c) Any reduction in the total number of hotel rooms specified in Section 2.2 by more than 15 rooms or increase in the total number of hotel rooms in excess of 120;
(d) Any reduction in the number of market-rate Rental Housing Units specified in Section 2.2 by more than five (5) units;
(e) Any increase in the total number of Rental Housing Units in excess of one-hundred (100);
(f) Any reduction in the number of Replacement Units specified in Section 2.7.1(c), Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing Units specified in Section 2.7.2, or Community Benefit Affordable Housing Units specified in Section 2.8.1; (g) For the Rental Housing Units that are not Replacement Units or Affordable Housing Units, any change in the unit mix that causes such units not to achieve the unit mix requirements for market-rate units in SMMC Section 9.10.070(C)(1)(b)(i); (h) For the Affordable Housing Units that are not Replacement Units, any change in the unit mix;

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 16 (i) For the Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing Units specified in Section 2.7.2 and the Community Benefit Affordable Housing Units specified in Section 2.8.1, any change in the unit size that results in such Affordable Housing Units not achieving the minimum unit sizes specified in the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction; (j) Any increase in floor area above the Maximum Floor Area; provided, however, that the following may be processed as a Minor Modification pursuant to Section 2.4.2: (i) shifting Floor Area from building Floor Area (above or below-grade) to Floor Area for outdoor dining, (ii) shifting Floor Area between the Second Street Parcel to the Ocean Avenue Parcel, (iii) conversion of vehicle parking spaces to Floor Area for other permitted uses in the Subterranean Space consistent with Section 2.5.1(g) if the City’s Community Development Director determines such vehicle parking spaces are no longer necessary to meet the Project’s peak parking demand;
(k) Any increase in the maximum Building Height above 130 feet for the Hotel Building, 60 feet for the Cultural Uses Building, 58 feet for the Corner Building, 75 feet for the Santa Monica Boulevard Building, or 106 feet Second Street Building(s); (l) Any increase in the permitted height projections that exceeds 5% of the height projections allowed by Section 2.10(d) below; (m) Any increase in the number of parking spaces above 285 parking spaces except as provided in SMMC Section 9.28.040(A)(5)(d); or any decrease in the number of parking spaces, unless the City’s Community Development Director determines such vehicle parking spaces are no longer necessary to meet the Project’s peak parking demand; (n) Any increase exceeding the clear interior height and width of the Project’s below-grade connections under First Court Alley connecting the subterranean garages on the Ocean Avenue Parcel and Second Street Parcel as shown on the Project Plans, unless the City Engineer recommends approval of such increase and the Community Development Director approves such increase as a Minor Modification pursuant to Section 2.4.2. (o) Reduction of the Project’s publicly-accessible open space, as described in Section 2.8.4 below;
(p) Reduction of the Project’s open space as described in Section

2.2(i);
(q) Any variation in the design, massing, open space, location of balconies, or building configuration, including but not limited to, Floor Area and building height, that renders such aspects out of substantial compliance with the Project Plans after Design Review pursuant to Article 6 and Coastal Commission approval of a Coastal Development Permit;
(r) Any reduction in the minimum size of the Cultural Uses Campus in Section 2.8.3 by more than five (5%) unless a greater reduction is required as a condition of approval for Design Review approval pursuant to Article 6 or Coastal Commission approval of a Coastal Development Permit; and

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 17 (s) Any other change that would reduce or materially alter the significant project features as set forth in Section 2.7 and/or community benefits as set forth in Section 2.8, unless expressly authorized in Section 2.7 or Section 2.8.

If a proposed modification does not exceed the Major Modification thresholds established above, then the proposed modification may be reviewed as a Minor Modification in accordance with Section 2.4.2.

2.4.4 City Consent to Modification. The City may impose customary fees, exactions, conditions, and mitigation measures in connection with its approval of a Minor or Major Modification, subject to any applicable law. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or in the Existing Regulations, if the Community Development Director approves a Minor Modification or if the City approves a Major Modification (and the corresponding amendment to this Agreement for such Major Modification), as the case may be, Developer shall not be required to obtain any other Discretionary Approvals for such modification, except for Design Review approval in accordance with Article 6 below, in the case of certain Major Modifications.

2.4.5 Right to Develop. Subject to the provisions of Section 3.3 below, during the Term (as defined in Section 9.2 below) of this Agreement, Developer shall have the vested rights (the “Vested Rights”) to (a) develop and construct the Project in accordance with the following: (i) the Project Plans (as the same may be modified from time to time in accordance with this Agreement); (ii) any Minor Modifications approved in accordance with Section 2.4.2; (iii) any Major Modifications which are approved pursuant to Section 2.4.3; and (iv) the requirements and obligations of Developer related to the improvements which are specifically set forth in this Agreement, and (b) use and occupy the Project for the permitted uses set forth in Sections 2.5 and 2.6. Except for any required Design Review approval pursuant to Article 6 of this Agreement, the City shall have no further discretion over the elements of the Project which have been delineated in the Project Plans (as the same may be modified from time to time in accordance with this Agreement).

2.4.6 Foundation Only Building Permit. SMMC Section 8.08.070(b) allows for issuance of partial permits for portions of a structure. Developer may submit an application for one or more foundation only permits, which application(s) shall be processed according to the Building and Safety Division’s Foundation Only Permit policy (PT-05-03, or any successor thereto).

2.5 Authorized Uses. The City approves the following authorized uses for the Project:

2.5.1 Permitted Uses. Permitted Uses in the Project are as specified below:
(a) In the Cultural Uses Campus:
(1) Cultural Facilities (including on the rooftop of the Cultural Uses Building).
(2) On the rooftop of the connection between the Cultural Uses Building and Hotel Building, Cultural Facilities and/or Hotel Uses, including a pool.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 18 (3) Within the one-story connection between the Cultural Uses Campus and Hotel Building, Cultural Facilities and/or Hotel Uses. (4) Uses accessory to any of the permitted uses in this Section

2.5.1(a) consistent with SMMC Section 9.52.020.2490, including, but not limited to:
(i) General Retail Sales, Small-scale as defined in
SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(22)(b); and
(ii) Restaurants, Full-Service and Limited Service &
Take-Out as defined in SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(8)(b) and (c), respectively, with Outdoor Dining and Seating Area as defined in SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(8)(e). (b) In the Hotel Building:
(1) Hotel Uses.
(2) Pedestrian-oriented retail/restaurant uses, including:
(i) General Retail Sales, Small-scale as defined in
SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(22)(b),
(ii) Convenience Market and General Market uses as
defined in SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(10)(a) and (c), respectively, (iii) Restaurants, Full-Service and Limited Service &
Take-Out as defined in SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(8)(b) and (c), respectively, with Outdoor Dining and Seating Area as defined in SMMC Section 9.51.030(B)(8)(e), (iv) General Personal Services as defined in SMMC
Section 9.51.030(B)(21)(a) so long as the individual tenant space(s) are 7,500 square feet or less and 50 linear feet or less of ground floor street frontage, (v) Personal Services, Physical Training and
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation, Small-Scale Facility as defined in SMMC Section

9.51.030(B)(7)(e), so long as the individual tenant space(s) are 50 linear feet or less of ground floor street frontage, and
(vi) Any other uses that are designated as permitted uses on the ground floor of the Ocean Avenue Parcel by the SMMC in effect at the time the use is established.
(3) Uses accessory any of the permitted uses in this Section

2.5.1(b) consistent with SMMC Section 9.52.020.2490.
(4) On the rooftop of the Hotel Building, Publicly-Accessible Observation Deck complying with the regulations in Section 2.8.4(d) and accessory uses, including an elevator lobby.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 19 (c) In the Corner Building, all uses permitted in the commercial space in the Hotel Building pursuant to Section 2.5.1(b)(2) and uses accessory to such uses consistent with SMMC Section 9.52.020.2490.
(d) In the Santa Monica Boulevard Building:
(1) Above the ground floor, Rental Housing Units and
Residential Amenities and Accessory Uses.
(2) On the ground floor, all uses permitted in the commercial space in the Hotel Building pursuant to Section 2.5.1(b)(2) and uses accessory to such uses consistent with SMMC Section 9.52.020.2490.
(e) In the Second Street Building(s):
(1) Above the ground floor, Rental Housing Units and
Residential Amenities and Accessory Uses.
(2) On the ground floor, all uses permitted in the commercial space in the Hotel Building pursuant to Section 2.5.1(b)(2) and uses accessory to such uses consistent with SMMC Section 9.52.020.2490.
(f) In up to 68,180 square feet of Floor Area in the Subterranean Space on the Ocean Avenue Parcel and/or Second Street Parcel, Cultural Facilities, Hotel Uses, Residential Amenities and Accessory Uses, all uses in Section 2.5.1(b)(2), and uses included in Section 2.5.1(g) below.
(g) In the Subterranean Space not designated as Floor Area, the following additional uses are Permitted Uses:
(1) Parking including regular, tandem and valet parking, and car share parking;
(2) Bicycle storage/parking and repair facilities/rooms for Project residents and employees;
(3) Employee showers and lockers;
(4) Mechanical, plumbing and electrical equipment;
(5) Storage space for the hotel and Project residents and tenants; and
(6) Uses accessory to any of the permitted uses in the Project consistent with SMMC Section 9.52.020.2490.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 20 (h) Notwithstanding the above, commercial uses other than Hotel Uses and Cultural Facilities Uses (including their accessory uses), shall not exceed 36,110 square feet of Floor Area.
(i) In the Project’s open space, outdoor dining including outdoor dining associated with any of the permitted uses in this Section 2.5.1 and bicycle parking.

Except as specifically provided herein, Developer will not be required to obtain any additional Discretionary Approvals for any of the Permitted Uses. Permitted Uses may commence in the Project upon issuance of a City business license and without any discretionary planning approvals for such uses.

2.5.2 Uses Permitted through Minor Use Permit. A minor use permit shall be required for uses identified as requiring a Minor Use Permit in the SMMC in effect at the time the use is sought to be established, with the exception of any uses that are defined as Permitted Uses in Section 2.5.1 above. Uses requiring a Minor Use Permit may commence operating at the Project upon issuance of a Minor Use Permit in accordance with the procedures established in the SMMC and the issuance of a business license.

2.5.3 Conditionally Permitted Uses. “Conditionally Permitted Uses” include (a) all uses that are identified as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the SMMC in effect at the time the use is sought to be established, with the exception of any uses that are defined as Permitted Uses in Section 2.5.1 above and (b) any uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit in Section 2.6.

Conditionally Permitted Uses may commence operating at the Project upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) in accordance with the procedures established in the SMMC and the issuance of a business license.

2.5.4 Other Uses Subject to Discretionary City Planning Approvals. In addition to Permitted Uses, Minor Use Permit Uses, and Conditionally Permitted Uses, Developer may seek City discretionary planning approval for uses in the ground floor space and Subterranean Space that are allowed by any other City discretionary process as provided in the Zoning Ordinance in effect when the use is sought to be established. Such use(s) may not commence until the requisite City discretionary planning approval and a business license are obtained.

2.5.5 Prohibited Uses.
(a) Vacation Rentals and Corporate Housing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, vacation rentals as defined in SMMC Section 6.20.010(m) and corporate housing as defined in SMMC Section 9.51.020(A)(2) are prohibited. These prohibitions shall be included in all residential leases in the Project and shall be acknowledged by the tenant in the lease. (b) Change of Use in Rental Housing Units. Developer covenants and agrees that any conversion of the Rental Housing Units to another use, including without limitation, condominiums, is prohibited during the Life of the Project. Notice of this Section

2.5.5(b) shall be recorded separately from and concurrently with this Agreement, stating that its terms are applicable for the Life of the Project.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 21 2.6 Alcoholic Beverage Permits.

2.6.1 In the event Developer or a business operator proposes a new business or use dispensing for sale or other consideration, alcoholic beverages, including beer, wine, malt beverages, and distilled spirits for on-site or off-site consumption, a Conditional Use Permit or Alcohol Exemption Zoning Conformance Permit, as applicable, shall be required pursuant to SMMC Section 9.31.040, or any successor thereto, except for Restaurants complying with Section 2.6.2, and Hotel Uses and Cultural Facilities uses complying with Section 2.6.3.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Conditional Use Permit or Alcohol Exemption shall be required for catered events for which the necessary permits then required for such events have been obtained.

2.6.2 Restaurants, Full Service with or without Outdoor Dining and Seating Areas and Restaurants, Limited-Service and Take-Out with or without Outdoor Dining and Seating Areas which offer alcoholic beverages incidental to meal service shall be exempt from the provisions of SMMC 9.31.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that the operator of the Restaurant (or Developer, if Developer is the applicant) agrees in writing to comply with all of the criteria and conditions in Exhibit “E-1” of this Agreement and the Developer shall cause the applicable lease (or other agreement with the Restaurant operator) to contain a clause that requires the restaurant tenant to comply with such terms and conditions.

2.6.3 Hotel, with or without Outdoor Dining and Seating Areas, and Cultural Facilities Uses shall be exempt from the provisions of SMMC 9.31.040, provided that the operator of the Hotel (or Developer, if Developer is the applicant) agrees in writing to comply with all of the criteria and conditions in Exhibit “E-2” of this Agreement and the Developer shall cause the Hotel management agreement (or other agreement with the Hotel operator), if any, to contain a clause that requires the Hotel operator to comply with such terms and conditions. For the avoidance of doubt, restaurants located in the Hotel Building may offer alcoholic beverages pursuant to Section 2.6.2 above.

2.6.4 This Section 2.6 shall survive the Term of this Agreement and shall remain binding on Developer, its successors and assigns, and shall continue in effect for the Life of the Project. Notice of the terms and conditions in Exhibit “E-1” and “E-2” shall be recorded separately from and concurrently with this Agreement, stating they are applicable for the Life of the Project.

2.7 Significant Project Features. Set forth below in this Section 2.7 are the significant project features to be achieved and/or developed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

2.7.1 Replacement of Existing Rent Controlled Housing Units. Developer currently has nineteen (19) residential rental dwelling units (“Existing Unit(s)”) located in the existing 101 Santa Monica Boulevard Building that are subject to the Santa Monica Rent Control Law (Article XVIII of the City Charter) (“RCL”)). As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project or any portion of the Project, Developer shall comply with the following requirements:

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 22 (a) Removal of Units from Rental Housing Market. The final permit necessary to demolish, convert, or otherwise remove any Existing Unit from the rental housing market shall not be issued until the Developer has first secured a removal permit under Section 1803(t) of the RCL or withdrawn the Existing Units from the rental market pursuant to the provisions of the Ellis Act (Government Code section 7060 et seq.). (b) Compliance with Removal Permit. If Developer secures a Removal Permit under Section 1803(t) of the RCL to remove the Existing Units from the rental housing market, Developer shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Removal Permit and the requirements set forth in Section 2.7.1(c) shall not be applicable. (c) Compliance with Ellis Act. If Developer removes the Existing Units from the rental housing market pursuant to the Ellis Act, then Developer shall comply with all provisions of the Ellis Act in effect at the time of removal. Developer understands, acknowledges, and agrees that the City’s Rent Control Board shall have the authority to enact regulations implementing the anti-abuse provisions permitted by the Ellis Act, consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes of the RCL in effect at the time that Developer seeks to demolish, convert, or otherwise remove an Existing Unit. In addition, the following requirements shall apply:
1) Rent Control Board Regulations. Developer shall
comply with the Rent Control Board regulations implementing the Ellis Act then in effect and applicable to the “Owners” including, but not limited to, Subchapter B of Chapter 16 (§1604- 1613) of the Rent Control Board Regulations.
2) Replacement Units. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary herein, if the Existing Units are demolished and the Project’s Rental Housing Units have been constructed, Developer agrees that nineteen (19) Replacement Units shall be provided in the Second Street Building(s) and/or the Santa Monica Boulevard Building, as follows: sixteen (16) Rental Housing Units shall be subject to the RCL (“Price-Restricted Replacement Units”); and three (3) Rental Housing Units shall be deed restricted for 80% Income Households in accordance with Section 2.7.2(d) (the “Affordable Replacement Units”). The PriceRestricted Replacement Units and the Affordable Replacement Units are referenced collectively herein as the “Replacement Units”. Developer acknowledges, understands, and agrees that the purpose of this subparagraph is to ensure that the Price-Restricted Replacement Units are subject to the RCL in accordance with Gov’t Code Section 7060.2(d).

3) The Replacement Units are Subject to Rent Control
Law and Regulations. All Replacement Units, including the Affordable Replacement Units, shall be subject to the RCL and regulations. Developer understands, acknowledges, and agrees that the Rent Control Board shall have jurisdiction to ensure Developer’s compliance with the RCL and regulations as to the leasing or rental of the Replacement Units after the initial tenancy. 4) Displaced Tenant Option For Permanent Relocation
Fee. Developer understands, acknowledges, and agrees that tenants with leases of Existing Units in effect at the time that the Existing Units are withdrawn from the rental housing market constitute “Displaced Tenant(s)” within the meaning of SMMC Chapter 4.36. Notwithstanding

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 23 the requirements in SMMC ch. 4.36 for Developer to pay a permanent relocation fee (or provide permanent physical relocation), when Developer provides Displaced Tenants with the required Notice To Terminate Tenancy, Developer shall also provide Displaced Tenants with a Notice of Temporary Relocation Option which shall inform the Displaced Tenant that he/she/they may elect to be temporarily relocated in accordance with Section 2.7.1(c)(5) below instead of receiving the permanent relocation fee. If a Displaced Tenant does not notify Developer within thirty (30) days of the date of the Notice of Temporary Relocation Option that such Displaced Tenant plans to be relocated in accordance with Section 2.7.1(c)(5) below, then Displaced Tenant shall be deemed to have elected to receive the permanent relocation fee. For Displaced Tenants electing (or deemed to have elected) to receive the permanent relocation fee, Developer shall comply with the permanent relocation fee requirements in SMMC ch. 4.36. Upon the election of a Displaced Tenant to be temporarily relocated in accordance with Section

2.7.1(c)(5), Developer may provide City with documentation of such election and draft escrow instructions authorizing return of the applicable permanent relocation fee amount to Developer and City shall provide written approval, within 10 days of Developer’s request, for such funds to be returned to the Developer.
5) Displaced Tenant Temporary Relocation.

Notwithstanding the requirements in SMMC ch. 4.36 related to permanent physical relocation, for Displaced Tenant(s) electing to be temporarily relocated, Developer shall instead:
(i) Provide temporary housing that is reasonably
comparable in size, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, accessibility, location (which may be in either Santa Monica or Los Angeles), proximity to services and institutions upon which the displaced tenant depends, and amenities, including the allowance for pets should the tenant have pets until the earlier (“Temporary Comparable Housing”) of (x) Certificate of Occupancy for the Project is issued and the Replacement Units are ready for occupancy, (y) termination of this Agreement, or (z) Existing Tenant moves out of the Temporary Comparable Housing. For the avoidance of doubt, the Existing Unit’s proximity to the ocean, location within the building and/or views is not a comparability factor for the “Comparable Housing”. (ii) If an Existing Tenant elects to relocate to the
Temporary Comparable Housing from its Existing Unit, Developer shall pay customary and reasonable moving costs as further defined in SMMC Section 4.36.100(d). (iii) If an Existing Tenant elects to relocate to
Temporary Comparable Housing from its Existing Unit, then the following shall apply: (x) upon vacation of the Existing Unit by the Existing Tenant, any lease or rental agreement for the Existing Unit shall be deemed terminated and neither Developer nor Tenant shall have any further rights, duties or obligations thereunder, or with respect to the Existing Unit, except those that accrued prior to the vacation date, (y) Existing Tenant shall execute a new lease or rental agreement with the owner of the Temporary Comparable Housing and Developer shall have no rights, duties or obligations under such lease or rental agreement, or to the Temporary Comparable Housing, and (z) notwithstanding the requirement in SMMC Section 4.36.010 that the Comparable Housing be reasonably comparable in price, Developer shall pay to the Existing Tenant each month the amount by which the monthly rent for the Temporary Comparable

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 24 Housing exceeds the legal rent, plus allowed Annual General Adjustments pursuant to RCL Section 1805, for Tenant’s Existing Unit. Developer’s obligation pursuant to this Section

2.7.1(c)(5)(iii) to pay the monthly rent differential to the Existing Tenant shall continue until the earlier of (xx) Certificate of Occupancy for the Project is issued and the Replacement Units are ready for occupancy, (yy) termination of this Agreement, or (zz) Existing Tenant moves out of the Temporary Comparable Housing.
(iv) If an Existing Tenant exercises its right to occupy a Replacement Unit in accordance with Section 2.7.1(c)(6) below, Developer shall pay the actual costs of relocating a Displaced Tenant’s personal property from the Temporary Comparable Housing to a Replacement Unit based on an actual move by a professional moving company.

6) Right of First Refusal Granted to Displaced Tenants.

After the Existing Units are demolished and prior to issuance of the certificates of occupancy for the Second Street Building(s) and/or Santa Monica Boulevard Building, Developer shall first offer the Replacement Units to the Displaced Tenants of the Existing Units, as follows:
(i) Concurrent with its obligation to notify tenants of their relocation rights under state or local laws upon initiation of withdrawal of the Existing Units from the rental market, Developer shall provide written notice to the Displaced Tenants of each Displaced Tenant’s right of first refusal to occupy a Price-Restricted Replacement Unit, Affordable Replacement Unit, or Affordable Housing Unit (defined in Section 2.7.2, below) as follows:
(x) One of the Price-Restricted Replacement
Units at a maximum allowable rent that is the rent in effect at the time of the Displaced Tenant’s displacement plus allowed Annual General Adjustments pursuant to RCL Section 1805, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Second Street Building(s) and/or Santa Monica Boulevard Building, as applicable, or
(y) If the Displaced Tenant income qualifies for
an Affordable Replacement Unit or an Affordable Housing Unit, as applicable, at a maximum allowable rent that is the lower of rent in effect at the time of the Displaced Tenant’s displacement plus allowed Annual General Adjustments pursuant to RCL Section 1805 or the deed restricted rent for the applicable income category of the Displaced Tenant, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Second Street Building(s) and/or Santa Monica Boulevard Building, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if more Displaced Tenants incomequalify for a particular Affordable Replacement Unit or Affordable Housing Unit income level type (i.e. 30%, 50%, 80% or Moderate Income) than are provided in the Project, Developer shall not be required to provide additional Affordable Housing Units and shall instead provide such Existing Tenant with a Price-Restricted Replacement Unit. (ii) No earlier than eighteen (18) months and no later
than twelve (12) months prior to the issuance of the certificates of occupancy for the Second Street Building(s) and/or Santa Monica Boulevard Building, Developer shall make a written offer to each Displaced Tenant (the “Offer”) to occupy a Price-Restricted Replacement Unit, Affordable Replacement Unit, or Affordable Housing Unit as applicable.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 25 (iii) Each Displaced Tenant shall have no less than sixty (60) days to provide Developer with written notice of intent to exercise the right to occupy a Price-Restricted Replacement Unit, Affordable Replacement Unit or Affordable Housing Unit, as applicable. Upon expiration of the notice period, if Displaced Tenant has not exercised its right to occupy a Price-Restricted Replacement Unit, Affordable Replacement Unit or Affordable Housing Unit, as applicable, Developer shall have no further obligations to such Displaced Tenant, including, without limitation, payment of any rent differential for Displaced Tenant’s Temporary Comparable Housing pursuant to Section 2.7.1(c)(5)(iii)(z) above. (iv) Each Price-Restricted Replacement Unit,
Affordable Replacement Unit, or Affordable Housing Unit, as applicable, must be reasonably comparable only in the total floor area (up to a 15% difference), number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and amenities inside the unit as Displaced Tenant’s prior Existing Unit. The Existing Unit’s other features, including without limitation, proximity to the ocean, floor level, location within the building, and/or views are not comparability factors for a Price-Restricted Replacement Unit, Affordable Replacement Unit or Affordable Housing Unit. (v) Developer shall provide written documentation of
the Offer made to each Displaced Tenant to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, including, at a minimum:
aa. the names and contact information of
Displaced Tenants, which information shall remain confidential to the extent required by law; bb. copies of the notices of the rights of first
refusal provided to the Displaced Tenants;
cc. copies of the Offer made to each Displaced
Tenant; and
dd. notice of the Price-Restricted Replacement
Units to the Rent Control Board.
(vi) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Section 2.7.1(c)(4)-(6), any Displaced Tenant may negotiate a separate temporary or permanent relocation package with Developer in lieu of the benefits to be provided pursuant to this Section

2.7.1(c)(4)-(6); provided the requirements of SMMC Section 4.56.050, or any subsequently adopted provisions addressing tenant voluntary buy out agreements, are met. (d) In accordance SMMC Section 9.64.120, City agrees that any deedrestricted affordable units provided by Developer to satisfy the terms of a Removal Permit pursuant to Section 2.7.1(b) or the three (3) Affordable Replacement Units required in Section

2.7.1(c) above, as applicable, may be used to comply with the requirements in Section 2.7.2 or

2.8.1, including counting toward the twenty-five (25) Affordable Housing Units required therein.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 26 2.7.2 Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing Units. In addition to the PriceRestricted Replacement Units required by Section 2.7.1, Developer shall deed restrict a total of twenty (20) of the Project’s Rental Housing Units (“Affordable Housing Units”), as follows:
(a) The Affordable Housing Units shall be located in the Second Street Building(s) and/or Santa Monica Boulevard Building and shall consist of four (4) units available to and occupied by 30% Income Households, four (4) units available to and occupied by 50% Income Households, six (6) units available to and occupied by 80% Income Households (three (3) of which may be satisfied by the three (3) Affordable Replacement Units), and six (6) units available to and occupied by Moderate Income Households; (b) The Affordable Housing Units shall consist of three (3) studio units, eight (8) one-bedroom units and nine (9) two-bedroom units; (c) Except for the Affordable Replacement Units, the Affordable Housing Units shall comply with the minimum unit sizes in SMMC Section 9.64.050(E) and the minimum unit size requirements in SMMC Section 9.10.070(C)(1)(a)(iv) shall not apply to the Project;
(d) The term of the deed restriction for the Affordable Housing Units (“Affordable Housing Deed Restriction”) shall be ninety-nine (99) years from issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Second Street Building(s) and/or Santa Monica Boulevard Building, as applicable to where the Affordable Housing Units are located in each of the aforementioned buildings. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such deed restriction shall automatically terminate if the Second Street Building(s) and/or Santa Monica Boulevard Building, as applicable, is damaged or destroyed and cannot be rebuilt in accordance with the development standards permitted in this Agreement. The terms and conditions of the deed restriction shall be substantially similar to the form of deed restriction attached hereto as Exhibit “P” (Form of Deed Restriction for Affordable Housing Units), but may be updated to reflect the form approved by the Director of Community Services Department and City Attorney to satisfy the standard Affordable Housing Production Program deed restriction requirements then in effect at the time that the deed restriction is recorded. The Affordable Housing Deed Restriction shall be recorded against the Ocean Avenue Parcel and the Second Street Parcel prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project. The recording shall be made in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles.
(e) All Affordable Housing Units shall be subject to SMMC Chapter

9.64, the Affordable Housing Production Program, except as expressly modified in this Agreement.
(f) Any Displaced Tenant whose income qualifies them to occupy an Affordable Housing Unit shall have first priority to occupy an Affordable Housing Unit. (g) The affordable housing requirements included in this Section 2.7.2 fully-satisfy the Project’s affordable housing requirements in SMMC Chapter 9.64 (the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program), to the extent that they are applicable to the Project.

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 27 2.7.3 Desirable Mix of Uses in the Downtown. This Project includes a desirable mix of uses, including hotel uses, replacement rental housing units, new market rate and affordable rental housing with varying unit types and sizes, cultural uses and ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses including publicly-accessible open space.

2.7.4 Economic and Fiscal Benefits. The Project will contribute to the economic health and well-being of Santa Monica by (i) significantly increasing City tax revenues generated by the Project Site, including transient occupancy taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, business license taxes, parking tax, and utility user’s taxes, and (ii) generating new visitor and resident spending at local businesses, including dining, shopping and entertainment venues.

2.7.5 Aesthetic Enhancement to the Downtown Core. Development of a welldesigned mixed-use development.

2.7.6 Permanent Employment Opportunities. The Project will expand and increase employment opportunities during operation of the Project with redevelopment of retail/restaurant spaces and the addition of the Cultural Uses Campus and a unionized hotel.

2.7.7 Cultural Arts. Developer shall provide for cultural arts and cultural resources in accordance with SMMC Chapter 9.30, which obligation may be satisfied through expenditure of money on preservation of the Project Site’s City-designated landmarks in accordance with SMMC Section 9.30.040(B).

2.7.8 Construction Employment Opportunities. The Project provides significant new design and construction-related employment opportunities.

2.7.9 Developer Contribution for School Facilities. Developer shall provide the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District with fees for capital improvements as required by California Government Code § 65995.

2.7.10 Water Conservation Measures. The Project shall include the following water conservation measures, which shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. Nothing in this Section 2.7.10 shall preclude the City from applying Subsequent Code Changes permitted in accordance with Section 5.2:
(a) The Project shall achieve Water Neutrality in accordance with SMMC 7.16.050.
(b) The Project shall comply with the Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Standards in accordance with SMMC 8.108 Subpart A. (c) Developer shall comply with the City’s water recycling ordinance in effect as of this Agreement’s Effective Date (“2022 Water Recycling Ordinance”), including mandatory use of recycled water for surface irrigation (i.e., landscaping) and/or dual-plumbing applications (i.e., flushing toilets, cooling towers) for all allowable applications specified by Title 22 of California’s Code of Regulations and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health in accordance with SMMC Section 7.12.170(c). Developer may elect to

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 28 utilize/comply with any future revision to the 2022 Water Recycling Ordinance, or successor thereto. Recycled water use shall not count as “New Water Demand” within the meaning of SMMC 7.16.050.
(d) Any pool and/or spa shall have a pool cover installed in accordance with SMMC 7.16.020 (c)(2). The cover for any pool must be power-operated, fully automatic, solid track, certified to meet and/or exceed ASTM F1346-91 and be UL listed (U.L. file E52841) for ASTM safety and US electrical standards.

2.7.11 Energy Conservation Measures. The Project shall include the following energy conservation measures which are currently requirements of the SMMC and shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. Nothing in this Section 2.7.11 shall preclude the City from applying Subsequent Code Changes permitted in accordance with Section

5.2:
(a) Developer shall comply with SMMC 8.36.030 Energy efficiency and solar photovoltaic requirements—High-rise residential, non-residential, and hotel and motel buildings.
(i) The Title 24 Certificate of Compliance described in Section 10-103 of the 2019 California Energy Code shall be prepared and signed by a Certified Energy Analyst as the Documentation Author.
(ii) Developer shall install a photovoltaic (PV) system with a minimum capacity of two watts per square foot of the building footprint in accordance with SMMC 8.36.030;
(iii) All new all-electric high-rise residential, non-residential, and hotel and motel buildings shall be designed to code established by the 2019 California Energy Code; or
(iv) All new mixed-fuel high-rise residential and hotel and motel buildings shall be designed to use five percent less energy than the allowed energy budget established by the 2019 California Energy Code.
(b) For new pool construction in the Project, if the pool is to be heated, an electric heat pump water heater or a solar thermal system shall be used for such heating in accordance with SMMC 8.106.080, or successor thereto; and (c) The Project shall include the following electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the parking areas of the Subterranean Space in accordance with Section 4.106.4 and 5.106.5.3 of the 2019 CALGreen (Title 24) as amended by SMMC 8.106.110 and 8.106.120 and this Section 2.7.11(c):
(i) EV chargers in ten percent (10%) of the vehicular parking spaces,

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 29 (ii) Infrastructure to make an additional four and one-half percent (4.5%) vehicular parking spaces EV Ready (breaker, wiring, panel capacity, receptacle and raceways and associated conductors capable of accommodating 208/240-volt dedicated branch circuits),
(iii) Raceways/conduits and associated conductors capable of accommodating 208/240-volt dedicated branch circuits in an additional thirty eight and one-half percent (38.5%) vehicular parking spaces, and
(iv) Developer shall report demand for EV chargers to the City as part of its annual Development Agreement compliance reporting required by Section 10.2. If demand for EV chargers increases beyond the number required in Section 2.7.11(c)(i), then Developer shall first install EV chargers in all or some of the EV ready spaces required by

2.7.11(c)(ii) and then in all or some of the raceway/conduit spaces required by Section

2.7.11(c)(iii) to the extent necessary to accommodate the additional demand. If demand for EV chargers increases beyond this 53% of vehicle spaces, then Developer shall be required to install additional EV chargers to meet the additional demand.

2.7.12 Developer Contribution for Early Childhood Initiatives. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, Developer shall pay an Early Childhood Initiatives contribution to the City in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). The City shall utilize this contribution to support early childhood initiatives including but not limited to infant, toddler and pre-school tuition subsidies; family support and parent engagement strategies; home visitation programs; facility and playground improvements and kindergarten readiness models. The City shall deposit such monies into a separate restricted account to be used exclusively for the early childhood initiatives as described above through guidelines to be established by the City. This fee satisfies the project’s requirement to pay a Child Care Linkage Program fee pursuant to SMMC Chapter 9.65.

2.7.13 Transportation Demand Management Plan. Developer shall implement and maintain a Transportation Demand Management Plan (“TDM Plan”) commencing with the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as set forth in Exhibit “H”.

2.7.14 Various standard public improvements and fees. Developer shall pay fees and construct public infrastructure improvements pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

2.8 Community Benefits. Set forth below in this Section 2.8 are the additional community benefits that will be provided by the Project for the Life of the Project, as defined in Section 1.32 of this Agreement, unless specified otherwise in this Agreement.

2.8.1 Community Benefit Affordable Housing Units. In addition to the Affordable Replacement Units required by Section 2.7.1(c)(2), five (5) of the Price-Restricted Replacement Units required by Section 2.7.1(c)(2) shall be deed restricted for Moderate-Income Households in accordance with Section 2.7.2(d) (referenced hereinafter as “Community Benefit Units”) and subject to the following conditions:
(a) Any Displaced Tenant who qualifies as a Moderate-Income Household shall have the first priority to occupy a Community Benefit Unit, and the maximum

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 30 allowable rent shall be the lower of rent in effect at the time of the Displaced Tenant’s displacement plus allowed Annual General Adjustments pursuant to RCL Section 1805 or the deed restricted rent for a Moderate-Income Household;
(b) A Displaced Tenant with household income greater than the income limits for a Moderate-Income Household shall have second priority to occupy a Community Benefit Unit, as follows:
i. Notwithstanding the deed restriction, the Developer and Displaced Tenant shall be subject to the rights and obligations of any Displaced Tenant in a Price-Restricted Unit, as set forth in Section 2.7.1.
ii. After vacancy by the Displaced Tenant or if the
Community Benefit Unit is never occupied by a Displaced Tenant, the Community Benefit Unit shall be subject to all requirements for a Moderate-Income Household, as set forth in the deedrestriction. (c) Except as provided in this Section 2.8.1, the Community Benefit Units shall satisfy all of the requirements for the Replacement Affordable Units. (d) City and Developer each understands, acknowledges, and agrees that the total tally of Price-Restricted Replacement Units, Affordable Replacement Units, Affordable Housing Units, and Community Benefit Units, as required by this Agreement, shall be: eleven (11) Price-Restricted Replacement Units; plus twenty-five (25) deed-restricted affordable units (four (4) available to and occupied by 30% Income Households, four (4) available to and occupied by 50% Income Households, six (6) available to and occupied by 30% Income Households, four (4) available to and occupied by 80% Income Households, and eleven (11) available to and occupied by Moderate Income).

2.8.2 Historic Preservation. The relocation and rehabilitation work as to the two City-designated Landmark buildings, Queen Anne Landmark and Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark, will ensure that they retain their historical significance as historic resources while being incorporated into the Project’s Cultural Uses Campus for public enjoyment. (a) Queen Anne Landmark. The Queen Anne Landmark currently located at 1333 Ocean Avenue shall be rehabilitated and restored after its repositioning on site as part of the Project’s Cultural Uses Campus. The Queen Anne Landmark was designated as a City Landmark on May 14, 2001. (LC-01LM001.) This designation does not include the building’s interior.

Significance. Originally constructed in 1906, the one-time home is one of the last surviving examples of early residential development on Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. The Queen Anne Landmark exemplifies treasured cultural and architectural aspects of the City’s early residential settlement; its remaining architectural features and characteristics are considered valuable to the study of the Queen Anne architectural style from the turn of the twentieth century; and its continued presence on Ocean Avenue, together with the City10.B.b Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: OAP DA 2nd Reading 2022.07.26 Part 1 of 2 through exhibit F (5241 : 2nd Reading - Gehry DA) 31 designated Landmark Gussie Moran House, serve to illustrate what Ocean Avenue was once like.

Character-Defining Features. The Queen Anne Landmark
incorporates many of the trademarks of its type, including horizontal wood clapboard cladding and wood shingle siding, large side dormers, a large front bay window, a recessed main entry with monumental wide door, recessed wood-frame sash windows, and a steeply pitched multigable roof with boxed eaves, exposed rafter tails, dentils, and wide trim band at cornice lines.

The original two-story wood shingled round tower is another classic feature associated with this idiom; however, character-defining features that are no longer extant include the full height round tower with widow’s walk, an open front entry porch, first floor porch column capitals, gable ornamentation, brick chimney, and once full length second floor porch, as documented in historic photographs.

Staged Moving. The process for moving the Queen Anne
Landmark during Project construction shall comply with professional standards and guidelines identified in the National Park Service’s publication entitled, Moving Historic Buildings (1979).