Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, September 27, 2022 (part 4 of 4)

3. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to supply full rated amperage at each EV capable space.

4. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the reserved overcurrent protective device space(s) as “EV CAPABLE”. The raceway termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as “EV CAPABLE”.

Note: A parking space served by electric vehicle supply equipment or designed as a future EV charging space shall count as at least one standard automobile parking space only for the purpose of complying with any applicable minimum parking space requirements established by an enforcement agency. See Vehicle Code Section 22511.2 for further details.

Table 5.106.5.3.1
TOTAL

NUMBER OF

REQUIRED EV

NUMBER OF
EVCS

10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 16 ACTUAL

PARKING
SPACES

CAPABLE
SPACES
(EV CAPABLE SPACES

PROVIDED WITH
EVSE) 2
0-9 0 0
10-25 4 0
26-50 8 2
51-75 13 3
76-100 17 4
101-150 25 6
151-200 35 9
201 and over 20 percent of total1 25 percent of EV
capable spaces 1

1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

2. The number of required EVCS (EV capable spaces provided with EVSE) in column 3 count toward the total number of required EV capable spaces shown in column 2.

Table A5.106.5.3.1
TOTAL

NUMBER OF
ACTUAL

PARKING
SPACES
TIER 1

NUMBER OF

REQUIRED EV

CAPABLE
SPACES
TIER 1

NUMBER OF
EVCS
(EV CAPABLE SPACES

PROVIDED WITH
EVSE)2
0-9 2 0
10-25 5 2
26-50 11 4
51-75 19 5
76-100 26 9
101-150 38 13
151-200 53 18
201 and over 30 percent of total1 33 percent of EV
capable spaces 1

1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

2. The number of required EVCS (EV capable spaces provided with EVSE) in column 3 count toward the total number of required EV capable spaces shown in column 2.

10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 17 5.106.5.3.2 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS).

EV capable spaces shall be provided with EVSE to create EVCS in the number indicated in Table A5.106.5.3.1. The EVCS required by Table A5.106.5.3.1 may be provided with EVSE in any combination of Level 2 and Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC), except that at least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. One EV charger with multiple connectors capable of charging multiple EVs simultaneously shall be permitted if the electrical load capacity required by Section

5.106.5.3.1 for each EV capable space is accumulatively supplied to the EV charger. The installation of each DCFC EVSE shall be permitted to reduce the minimum number of required EV capable spaces without EVSE by five and reduce proportionally the required electrical load capacity to the service panel or subpanel.

5.106.5.3.3 Use of automatic load management systems (ALMS).

ALMS shall be permitted for EVCS. When ALMS is installed, the required electrical load capacity specified in Section 5.106.5.3.1 for each EVCS may be reduced when serviced by an EVSE controlled by an ALMS. Each EVSE controlled by an ALMS shall deliver a minimum 30 amperes to an EV when charging one vehicle and shall deliver a minimum 3.3 kW while simultaneously charging multiple EVs.

5.106.5.3.4 Accessible EVCS.

When EVSE is installed, accessible EVCS shall be provided in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 11B Section 11B-228.3.

Note: For EVCS signs, refer to Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s).

5.106.5.3.5 Additional EV Ready Requirement for office facilities.

10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 18 In addition to the requirements of Table A5.106.5.3.1,for office parking facilities, an additional twenty (20) percent (rounded to the nearest whole number) of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles.

5.106.5.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging: medium-duty and heavy-duty.

Construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.4.1 to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). Construction for warehouses, grocery stores and retail stores with planned off-street loading spaces shall also comply with Section 5.106.5.4.1 for future installation of medium- and heavy-duty EVSE.

Exceptions:

1. On a case-by-case basis where the local enforcing agency has determined compliance with this section is not feasible based upon one of the following conditions:
a. Where there is no local utility power supply.
b. Where the local utility is unable to supply adequate power. c. Where there is evidence suitable to the local enforcing agency substantiating that additional local utility infrastructure design requirements, directly related to the implementation of Section 5.106.5.3, may adversely impact the construction cost of the project.

When EVSE(s) is/are installed, it shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the California Electrical Code and as follows:

10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 19 5.106.5.4.1 Electric vehicle charging readiness requirements for warehouses, grocery stores and retail stores with planned off-street loading spaces.

In order to avoid future demolition when adding EV supply and distribution equipment, spare raceway(s) or busway(s) and adequate capacity for transformer(s), service panel(s) or subpanel(s) shall be installed at the time of construction in accordance with the California Electrical Code. Construction plans and specifications shall include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The transformer, main service equipment and subpanels shall meet the minimum power requirement in Table 5.106.5.4.1.1 to accommodate the dedicated branch circuits for the future installation of EVSE.

2. The construction documents shall indicate one or more location(s) convenient to the planned off-street loading space(s) reserved for mediumand heavy-duty ZEV charging cabinets and charging dispensers, and a pathway reserved for routing of conduit from the termination of the raceway(s) or busway(s) to the charging cabinet(s) and dispenser(s), as shown in Table 5.106.5.4.1.

3. Raceway(s) or busway(s) originating at a main service panel or a subpanel(s) serving the area where potential future medium- and heavyduty EVSE will be located, and shall terminate in close proximity to the potential future location of the charging equipment for medium- and heavyduty vehicles.

10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 20 4. The raceway(s) or busway(s) shall be of sufficient size to carry the minimum additional system load to the future location of the charging for medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs as shown in Table 5.106.5.4.1.

TABLE 5.106.5.4.1
RACEWAY CONDUIT AND PANEL POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDIUMAND HEAVY-DUTY EVSE Building
type
Building Size
(sq. ft.)
Number of Offstreet loading
spaces
Additional capacity
Required (kVa) for
Raceway & Busway
and Transformer &
Panel
Grocery 10,000 to 90,000 1 or 2 200
Grocery Greater than 90,000 3 or Greater 400
Grocery Greater than 90,000 1 or Greater 400
Retail 10,000 to 135,000 1 or 2 200
Retail 10,000 to 135,000 3 or Greater 400
Retail Greater than 135,000 1 or Greater 400
Warehouse
20,000 to 256,000
1 or 2 200
Warehouse 20,000 to 256,000 3 or Greater 400
Warehouse Greater than 256,000 1 or Greater 400
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

10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 21 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 the Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. Following its adoption, this Ordinance shall be submitted to the California Building Standards Commission for filing. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after submission to the California Building Standards Commission. Building permit applications submitted on or after the effective date of this Ordinance shall be required to comply with the requirements set forth herein.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER_______ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

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

MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING LOCAL CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL,

TOPOGRAPHICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 17958.7, and 18941.5
WHEREAS, the State Building Standards Commission has approved and published the 2022 edition of the California Building Standards Code on July 1, 2022; and such code will be in effective 180 days thereafter, which is January 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, the 2022 California Building Standards Code includes the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7, and 18941.5 provide that the City may make changes or modifications to the building standards contained in the California Building Standards Code based upon express findings that such changes or modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, Section 101.7.1 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code provides that for the purposes of local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, local climatic, topographical, or geological conditions include local environmental conditions as established by the City; and WHEREAS, on or about September 20, 2016, the State of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 32, which added Health and Safety Code Section 38566 to require

10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 2 greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the United States’ original commitment to the Paris Climate Accord; and
WHEREAS, consistent with its May 2019 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (“CAAP”), the City of Santa Monica is committed to establishing requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by electrifying the building and transportation sectors, which will also increase the use of renewable energy; and
WHEREAS, based upon the findings contained in this Resolution, the City Council will be adopting an ordinance making local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code that are reasonably necessary based upon local climatic, geological, and environmental conditions.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Santa Monica does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council makes the following findings regarding local climatic, geological, topographical, and environmental conditions related to the local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code described in Section 2 below:

General Findings
(a) It is expected that climate change will result in more severe and frequent drought and extreme heat events, intensifying local heat islands and putting vulnerable populations at health risk. (Climatic)
(b) Due to changes in rainfall patterns expected with climate change, the City of Santa Monica is likely to be subject to more severe weather events, including droughts

10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 3 as well as more intense storms that increase the risks of wildfire, erosion, overland local flooding and landslides. (Climatic and Environmental)
(c) The greater Los Angeles region is a densely populated area having buildings constructed within a region where environmental resources are scarce due to varying and occasional immoderate temperatures and weather conditions. (Climatic and Environmental)
(d) Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could result in rises in sea level that could put at risk Santa Monica homes, businesses, and public facilities (Climatic and Geological).
(e) The State of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 32 to require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. (f) The City of Santa Monica is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the United States’ original commitment to the Paris Climate Accord.

Specific Findings
(g) As noted in the CAAP, in February 2019, the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California started serving Santa Monica residents with electricity sourced from a higher content of renewable energy sources, with the result that as of May 2019 Santa Monica residents and businesses receive a default 100% renewable electricity. (Climatic and Environmental)
(h) The local amendments to promote the use of all-electric vehicles will encourage the substitution of all-electric vehicles for vehicles that use non-renewable fuel and emit GHG, which will increase the use of renewable energy, promote a lower contribution to

10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 4 GHG emissions, and increase resilience to ongoing climate change. (Climatic and Environmental)
(i) On August 15, 2022, the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment met to consider recommendations to the City Council regarding adopting the 2022 California Building Standards Code, local amendments to that Code and local climatic, geological and topographical conditions. The Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution making necessary local findings and adopt the 2022 California Building Standards Code with local amendments. (j) On August 17, 2022, the Building and Fire Life Safety Commission met to consider recommendations to the City Council regarding adopting the 2022 California Building Standards Code, local amendments to that Code and local climatic, geological and topographical conditions. The Building and Fire Life Safety Commission voted to remain neutral on the proposed changes to the 2022 California Building Standards Code with local amendments.

SECTION 2: The City Council expressly finds that the following modifications and changes to the 2022 California Building Standards Code are reasonably necessary because of the local climatic or geological conditions and that each and every one the local conditions detailed in Section 1 above apply to the following modifications and changes to the 2022 California Building Standards Code, as follows:

10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 5 No. Municipal
Code
Section
Amendment Summary Justification
from Section
1 of this
Resolution
Local
Condition
1 8.106.110 In addition to current 2022 California
Green Building Standards Code
requirements:
(a) In multifamily development
projects with less than 20 dwelling
units and hotels and motels with less
than 20 sleeping units or guest
rooms, 5% of the total parking
spaces (rounded to the nearest
whole number) must have EV
chargers installed;
(b) A minimum of one EV Capable
space is required per project when
parking is provided; and
(c) In all new multifamily and hotel
projects, 60% of the total parking
spaces (rounded to the nearest
whole number) must be Low Power
Level 2 EV Ready spaces.

Sections (a)
through (j)
Climatic,
Geological,
Environmental
2 8.106.120 In addition to current 2022 California
Green Building Standards Code
requirements:
(a) In all new non-residential
buildings, EV Capable and EV
Charger spaces must be installed
according to CALGreen Tier 1 (Table
A5.106.5.3.1).
(b) In new office parking facilities, an
additional 20% of parking spaces
must be Low Power Level 2 EV
Ready spaces.

Sections (a)
through (j)
Climatic,
Geological,
Environmental

10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 6 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:
_____________________

DOUG SLOAN
City Attorney

10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Dean Kubani <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 1:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 10-C

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for Item 10-C on your agenda: adoption of the Zero Emission Building Code. Santa Monica has been a leader for over 30 years in addressing climate change and adoption of this code will continue that leadership and encourage other cities to take similar actions. In their 2018 Special Report, the climate experts on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make clear that globally we must cut our greenhouse gas emissions at least 45% by 2030 in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The IPCC report notes that meeting this urgent goal is not impossible but it will require “unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society”. Adopting the proposed Zero Emission Building Code is one of the transitions that is most urgently needed. It will ensure that all new buildings constructed in Santa Monica are fossil-fuel free and, thanks to the supply of 100% renewable electricity provided to the city by Clean Power Alliance, they won’t generate greenhouse gas emissions throughout their operational lives. In 2018 California began transitioning its energy supply to 100% renewable electricity and expanding its grid and energy storage capacity in order to support a new zero emission economy in the state. There are numerous cost effective and highly efficient alternatives to fossil-fueled building systems and appliances currently on the market including heat pump water heaters, induction stoves and electric clothes dryers. They are being used in buildings throughout the city now, including many affordable housing projects, so there is no excuse to not require them all new construction given the urgency of the climate crisis. Thank you for your consideration of my input and for your past and, hopefully, future leadership to address the climate crisis - there is no time to wait! Respectfully submitted,
Dean Kubani
Chair, Santa Monica Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment Item 10.C
09/27/22
1 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Danny Maier <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 4:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: September 27

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to you to express my strong support for the proposed updates to the Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Codes. These codes are crucial for Santa Monica to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 as well as for the greater mitigation of climate change. As someone who has worked with Climate Action Santa Monica, I have talked to many Santa Monica residents and people from around the world urging for the city to support policies and codes that will do just that. I strongly urge you to vote in support of these updated building codes. Thank you for your time and let's continue to mitigate the worst effects of climate change for a more sustainable future.

Sincerely,
Danny Maier
Item 10.C
09/27/22
2 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Rev. Jim Conn <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 11:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: September 27 Agenda Item 10 C, Zero Emission Building and EV Codes

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members...

I strongly support the staff proposals in this item. I urge you to vote for these policies.

JIM
Rev. Jim Conn
230 Pacific St #108
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310/392-5056
Associations:

CLUE - A Founding Member: www.cluejustice.org
Climate Action Santa Monica - Advisory Board
Asset Based Community Development: www.abcdinstitute.org/ United Methodist Minister - Retired: www.calpacUMC.org
Former Council Member and Mayor of Santa Monica
Item 10.C
09/27/22
3 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: gerda newbold <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 11:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: support for Item 10 C

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I'm writing to express my strong support for the proposed Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Code. I know I don't have to explain to you the urgency with which we must act on climate. The recent IPCC Report outlines all the risks ahead that are now becoming realities. Our current drought and the heatwaves across the world this summer only illustrate the point. It is critical that all levels of government update policies to address this crisis. We must electrify and we must electrify quickly.

Santa Monica has been a leader on addressing climate. This ordinance is another example of Santa Monica doing what needs to be done. I strongly urge you to vote in support of this updated building code. On a personal note, we put in an induction stove 8 years ago with no gas line to our stove. It works well and is cleaner and more energy efficient than gas.

We have no regrets!
Thank you for the work that you do on behalf of the City.

Gerda Newbold
225 12th Street
Item 10.C
09/27/22
4 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kathy Seal <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 4:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: September 27 meeting -- Support for Item 10 C

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please the proposed Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Code. I strongly support them, because we need to act on climate now -- as I'm sure you know. Governments have to update policies to meet this crisis head-on. Santa Monica has long lead in climate change policy, and I strong urge you to continue this tradition by voting in support of this updated building code.

Thanks so much for all the work that you do for our city! Kathy Seal
2431 32nd St.

Santa Monica CA 90405
‐‐

Item 10.C
09/27/22
5 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Kent Strumpell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 1:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Ariana Vito
Subject: 10C: Zero emission building codes

EXTERNAL
Honorable Council Members,
Please support the Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Codes It is clear that the climate crisis is accelerating dangerously and that the world is responding too slowly. The proposed Zero Emission Building and EV Charger codes are an opportunity for Santa Monica to continue our climate leadership, thereby encouraging other cities to join us in preventing the frightening consequences of continued fossil fuel dependence. At least 50 CA cities have already adopted similar policies.

Concerning costs
‐ The new codes will only affect new construction and major renovations. ‐ Experience in other CA jurisdictions has shown that building electrification actually saves money for customers on their energy bills.
‐ Electricity prices are more stable than natural gas (methane) prices.

Concerning safety and health
‐ Methane gas poses a risk of fires and explosions, especially during earthquakes. ‐ Gas appliances release toxic byproducts which result in serious long term health impacts.

Concerning climate change
‐ 30% of Santa Monica’s carbon emissions come from the use of methane gas in buildings. ‐ Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas prone to leaks during its production and distribution, making it nearly as destructive as the production and use of coal.

Thank you for considering this proposal and for your tireless work on City Council! Kent Strumpell
1211 Michigan Ave.

Santa Monica
Item 10.C
09/27/22
6 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: barry engelman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 12:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica neds to pass Zero Emissions code

EXTERNAL
I appreciate everything you've done to make Santa Monica a leader in climate action. I'm writing today to express my strong support for the proposed Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Code.

San Diego just passed a plan to ban natural gas from all new construction starting in 2023 and all older buildings within 12 years!
https://grist.org/beacon/san‐diego‐plans‐to‐electrify‐almost‐every‐building/ If San Diego can do it we can do it also!
Thank you.

Barry Engelman
421 California Ave.

Item 10.C
09/27/22
7 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Judy Hopkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 7:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: September 27 Meeting - Support for Item 10 C

Judy Hopkins
844 7th St. #7
SM 90403
Item 10.C
09/27/22
8 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 9:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: September 27 Agenda Item 10 C, Zero Emission Building and EV Codes

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:

I'm writing to express my strong support for the proposed updates to the Zero Emission Building and the EV Charger Codes.

Recent reports by the International Panel on Climate Change outlines all the risks ahead if we do not act. Many of these are becoming realities. Our current drought and the recent heat waves illustrate the point. We need action at all levels of government to achieve our climate goals. A very important climate solution is available to us today: electrify our energy uses, including for buildings and cars, and electrify quickly. Santa Monica has been a leader on addressing climate. These policy updates are another example of Santa Monica doing what needs to be done. I strongly urge you to vote in support of these updated building codes.

Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Sent from Mail for Windows
Item 10.C
09/27/22
9 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Janet Gollery McKeithen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 8:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: September 27 meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members‐
I'm writing to express my strong support for the proposed updates to the Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Codes.

Stating the obvious, Climate Change is already affecting the planet and our lives greatly. It will only get worse if we don't make changes to our policies and to the way we live. We need personal actions and we need action at all levels of government to have any significant impact.

The majority of Santa Monica’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from our buildings and motor vehicles. Electrification of these sectors represents two of the most significant steps we can take to reduce our carbon emissions, improve public health We can make decisions today that will make a significant impact: electrify our energy uses, including for buildings and cars, and electrify quickly. ‐ Electrification is cost effective in Santa Monica's climate zone, both for upfront construction costs and lifetime operating expenses, so it is unlikely that it would add costs that would be passed on to tenants So, it is much more equitable that gas. These policy updates will help the city of Santa Monica keep in line with its sustainability values.. I strongly urge you to vote in support of these updated building codes.

Sincerely,
‐‐
Rev. Janet Gollery McKeithen
Minister, Church in Ocean Park
President, Santa Monica Area Interfaith Council
Steering Committee, Committee for Racial Justice
Item 10.C
09/27/22
10 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) Item 10.C
09/27/22
11 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: John Adler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Item 10 C

EXTERNAL
Hi,
I am writing to urge you to approve the Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Code because they are reasonable efforts to help us live in a less self destructive manner.

Thanks,
John Adler
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 10.C
09/27/22
12 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Amy R. Butte <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 10 C comment

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
I am a Santa Monica resident who has been dedicated to the issue of climate since I learned the science in 6th grade. 40 years later, and scientists and policymakers the world over have agreed to achieve net zero carbon emissions no later than 2050 to avoid effects way more catastrophic than we're already seeing. I have two teenagers and work with youth on climate, and I tell them not to be too afraid. As long as we all together work according to these timelines, we will remain under 2 degrees C of warming and things can be under control. We can manage that much through adaptation.

Building new buildings in 2023 that commit to 100 years of methane and carbon emissions and do not support carbon neutral vehicles would not be aligned with Santa Monica's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) nor with other international and national goals. The proposed update to the building code begins phasing out our City's two largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions‐‐ building energy and vehicles. Methane is extremely potent especially in the short term as a greenhouse gas and cannot remain in a climate neutral energy system. Induction stoves, heat pumps, and solar thermal are excellent alternatives to gas.

By voting yes to update our building code for new buildings or major renovations, Santa Monica would be joining the 58 cities in California alone to draw the line against fossil fuel development per the timelines of consensus. It is not radical to start with just new buildings per this code. It's a great way for our City to reinforce itself as a destination for active, sustainable lifestyle. It is also responsible policy for our citizens and the young people who predominantly feel their future is being robbed to maintain the status quo of fossil fuel interests.

Sincerely,
Amy Butte
Santa Monica, CA
Item 10.C
09/27/22
13 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Dr Michael Cahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 12:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 10C adopting Local Amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Code

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members
I'm writing to express my strong support for the proposed updates to the Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Codes. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1323 Recent reports by the International Panel on Climate Change outlines all the risks ahead if we do not act. Many of these are becoming realities. Our current drought and the recent heat waves illustrate the point. We need action at all levels of government to achieve our climate goals. I strongly urge you to vote in support of these updated building codes.

Please consider to add the ability for water heaters not to operate during peak energy cost periods The proposed Zero Emission Building and EV Charger codes are an opportunity for Santa Monica to continue our climate leadership, thereby encouraging other cities to join us in preventing the frightening consequences of continued fossil fuel dependence. At least 50 CA cities have already adopted similar policies.

Sincerely,
‐‐
Dr Michael Cahn
507 Washington Ave
Santa Monica CA 90403
Item 10.C
09/27/22
14 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Diane Forte <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 3:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: Joshua Public Affairs Torres; David White; Shannon Parry; Ariana Vito Subject: Letter of Support for Agenda Item 10 C - Reach Code

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council,
I am writing on behalf of Southern California Edison (SCE) regarding Agenda Item 10 C – Amending the Santa Monica Municipal Code and adopting Local Amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Code...” A reach code ordinance can be a very cost‐effective way for local governments to achieve meaningful greenhouse gas reductions and help it achieve its climate and air quality goals. We strongly encourage the City of Santa Monica to adopt this reach code ordinance. SCE offers the following points in support of the ordinance:

1. Buildings are a major source of emissions in California.

2. Modern electric technologies are very efficient and often are demand response capable.

3. Studies1 have shown that the lifetime costs for all‐electric homes are either the same as or less expensive than mixed‐fuel homes for a large majority of Californians.

4. SCE is modernizing and hardening our distribution system, increasing reliability and resiliency – the grid is ready to support all electric buildings. Reliability is already excellent in Santa Monica through our partnership with the City.

5. Our efforts to strengthen the grid and add energy storage are paying off as evidenced by the State’s ability to avoid rolling blackouts in the most recent record heat wave.

And perhaps most importantly, in order to meet the State’s climate goals, our studies have shown that 70% of buildings need to be electrified as soon as possible.

BACKGROUND
Buildings are a major source of emissions in California – for both local air quality and greenhouse gases. Importantly, buildings have decades‐long lifespans, so when they are built with fossil fuel infrastructure, we are locking in multiple decades of additional fossil fuel emissions.

We are committed to serving the needs of California’s clean energy future, as outlined in our recent paper, Reimagining the Grid. This requires a grid that supports high levels of carbon‐free resources, integrates new technologies and services, and remains safe, reliable, affordable and resilient even as the climate continues to evolve. SCE is modernizing and hardening our distribution system, leveraging increasingly sophisticated hardware and software to manage a complex and intelligent grid. This will not only help enable greater adoption of clean energy technologies, but it will also improve general reliability while making the grid more resilient to threats exacerbated by climate change such as wildfires and heatwaves. We are investing approximately $5 billion annually to build a grid that customers can rely upon to support the clean energy future. Customer‐owned resources like rooftop solar and battery storage offer an additional level of resiliency. We estimate by 2045 about half of single‐family homes in our service territory will have some combination of solar and storage. Due to Title 24, all new residential construction will have solar and be energy storage ready, and most new commercial will also have solar. And more specifically, the reliability in Santa Monica is excellent as shown in its most recent reliability report (Page 7). Santa Monica 2022 Reliability Report Item 10.C
09/27/22
15 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 2 Serving the electrical needs of an all‐electric building is not a significant concern compared to a mixed‐fuel building. We design the electric grid to accommodate peak demand, which in most areas is driven by air conditioning load. Studies have shown the peak demand from all‐electric neighborhoods is not significantly higher than the peak demand from mixed‐fuel neighborhoods. This is because modern electric technologies are very efficient and often are demand response capable, meaning they can avoid or minimize usage during on‐peak hours when stress on the grid is greatest.

All of this translates into all‐electric homes have a “flatter” electricity demand profile. So, while they consume more electricity overall, all‐electric homes place that demand on the grid more evenly throughout the day, which means we don’t need significant upgrades to the grid specifically for all‐electric buildings.

We appreciate many customers have concerns about rotating outages given the recent heat storm. The August 31‐ September 9, 2022 heat wave was twice as long as the August 2020 event. We set a new statewide peak demand record and were also simultaneously dealing with a tropical storm that reduced solar output, yet we did not have to implement rotating outages. Our efforts to strengthen the grid are paying off. With climate change, more extreme weather including intense and longer heat waves are expected in the coming decades. SCE, in partnership with state energy regulators, has been and will continue to work on a variety of solutions to address the region’s long‐term reliability needs. For example, compared to August 2020, SCE has increased the amount of utility‐scale energy storage by a factor of 22. We now have almost 1,400 megawatts of energy storage online, with hundreds more megawatts expected to come online in 2023 and even more in subsequent years.

All‐electric new construction is affordable to build and operate. There are many affordable, clean, efficient all‐electric options for water heating, space heating, clothes drying, and cooking, all of which can be powered by carbon‐free electricity. Even though fossil fuels are often less expensive per unit of energy than electricity, electric technologies are significantly more efficient, meaning the total cost to operate electric technologies is the same as or less expensive than combustion technologies to operate. Studies1 have shown that the lifetime costs for all‐electric homes are either the same as or less expensive than mixed‐fuel homes for a large majority of Californians. Although, in coastal communities, like Santa Monica, studies show a slight increase in cost for all‐electric construction. This is due to the baseline case not already having air conditioning, but then adding it through the installation of a heat pump HVAC. HVAC heat pumps provide both heating and cooling, which make them less expensive to install than a separate furnace and air conditioner, which is especially important for coastal communities trying to adapt to a warming climate.

CONCLUSION
SCE is excited to partner with the City of Santa Monica in addressing the climate crisis. Emissions from the building sector are important to address if we are to meet the City’s and State’s climate goals. We strongly urge the City Council to approve the reach code ordinance. We look forward to our continued partnership. The future is electric.

Sincerely,
Diane Forte
Government Relations Manager
SCE Corporate Affairs
310.310.5262
1721 22nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404
[email protected] | @SCE_DianeF
Item 10.C
09/27/22
16 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 3 Attachments:

Reliability FAQ
Santa Monica 2022 Reliability Report
1Energy + Environmental Economics (E3), Residential Building Electrification in California, 2019 Item 10.C
09/27/22
17 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marilyn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 4:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: support for Item 10C,

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in support of the proposed "Zero Emission Building" and "EV Charger” codes, which I understand you will consider on Sept. 27. Santa Monica’s biggest contributors to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are from buildings and transportation, both of which are addressed in these well-conceived code changes. Following are some of the many reasons I urge the Commission to support these changes:

Zero Emission Building code:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has repeatedly advised that we must act soon to reduce GHG’s from the burning of all fossil fuels, but especially of natural gas. The proposed building code changes will require almost all new construction in the City to be fully electric. Since most of our City’s electricity comes from non-fossil fuel sources, this new code will power all new building with sustainable sources like wind and solar power. Since the new code will apply only to new construction, all existing commercial kitchens, businesses and homes currently using natural gas will not be unfairly penalized.

EV Charger code:

This code will make ownership of electric vehicles much more realistic for apartment dwellers and for employees commuting from outside of Santa Monica. Since we recently bought an EV and also own our single family home, we were fortunate enough to be able to install our own charger adjacent to our driveway. However, nearby friends occasionally ask to use our charger because they live in an apartment with no EV charger. This code will make the purchase of an EV much more achievable for the vast majority of Santa Monica residents.

Thank you for remembering my comments when you consider these two code changes.

Sincerely,
Marilyn Judson
850 Princeton St.

Santa Monica, CA 90403
310-453-1892 (home)
Item 10.C
09/27/22
18 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) September 26, 2022
Mayor Himmerlrich and City Council Members
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Item 10C - Zero Emission and EV Charger Reach Codes - Support Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council,
As a local organization committed to improving public health and confronting the climate crisis, we support the proposed Zero Emission Building Code for New Construction and the EV Charger Reach Code.

At least 60 communities across California have recognized all-electric new construction as a cost effective and socially equitable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect public health, and lower construction costs.

We approve of the approach taken in the proposed building code, to require electrification for nearly all building types, with a requirement that that any building installing gas appliances be electric ready to reduce the cost of future upgrades.

We especially appreciate the inclusion of property meeting the definition of demolition, and not just ground-up construction. By including these substantial remodels, the new electric-only construction requirement will have a much larger impact and building owners and residents will save money by avoiding the costs of future retrofits.

Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California. The solution is a mix of safe and accessible public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian-friendly streets, and electric vehicles. As California phases out the sale of gasoline-powered cars, Santa Monica’s proposed EV charging reach code will make it easier for renters and commuters to make the transition to electric cars.

Sincerely,
Michael Rochmes
Green Buildings Committee Chair,
Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter
Item 10.C
09/27/22
19 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Scott Morris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 7:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Item 10C - September 27 meeting: Zero Emission Building and EV Codes

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:

On behalf of The Low Carbon Initiative, I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed updates to the Zero Emission Building and the EV Charger Codes.

With over 50 California cities enacting all-electric codes, it's a natural next step that the City of Santa Monica is next.

Sincerely,
Scott Morris
‐‐ To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Scott Morris
Zero Can't Wait
lowcarboninitiative.org
818‐854‐2663
Item 10.C
09/27/22
20 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) Memo
To: City of Santa Monica City Council and City Manager’s Office From: Dean Kubani, Chair,Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment
Signature:

Date: August 16, 2022
Re: City of Santa Monica Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment MotionRegarding Zero Emissions Building Code and Electric Vehicle Reach Code
At the August 15, 2022 special meeting, the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment discussed and took action on the following agenda item:

Presentation on the Zero Emissions Building Reach Code and Electric Vehicle Reach Code
i) Ariana Vito (Sustainability Analyst) presented on the Zero Emission Building Code (SMMC 8.38) which prohibits fuel gas infrastructure in new buildings and major renovations that trigger City’s definition of demolition (>50% demo). Exemptions by request for equipment for Medical/Scientific/Lab use, as well as restaurants and commercial kitchens.
ii) Ariana also presented on the Electric Vehicle Reach Code to require electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new construction.

After discussion, the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment made the following motion:

The Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment recommends that Council adopt the proposed local amendments to the:
• 2022 California Energy Code (Zero Emission Building Code/gas ban for all new construction); and
Item 10.C
09/27/22
21 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) • 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (increased EV charging requirements for all new construction).

The motion was made by Member Lempert and seconded by Member Baghdasarian.

The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Chair Kubani
Member Baghdasarian
Member Tower
Member Lempert
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Member Sokol
Member Pettit
Member Mearns
Item 10.C
09/27/22
22 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Cris Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete
Cc: David White
Subject: 9/27 City Council Agenda Item 10 C: Zero Emissions Building and EV Codes

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:

I write to urge you to approve the proposed Zero Emission Building (ZEB) and updated Electric Vehicles (EV) codes. Imperative, practical, responsible updates to our Santa Monica Municipal Code, the ZEB and EV requirements will direct new construction and electrification infrastructure, which will stand for generations to come, freeing us from a dependence on fossil fuels, the burning of which has destabilized the climate, threatening daily living and livelihoods and devastating natural ecosystems.

Even in our beautiful city tucked into the Santa Monica Bay, we have been experiencing extreme heat and severe drought. Wildfires burst forth frequently year-round. Air quality worsens. Too soon, tides will extend and erode our sandy beaches. Food supplies can become more uncertain. We know that we must continue to reduce Santa Monica’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Thirty percent of our local GHG emissions come from the use of methane gas in buildings and 64% from transportation: electrification is urgent.

Technological advancements, a growing workforce capacity and smart investments enable us to meet the goals set forth in our Climate Action & Adaptation Plan and the state’s AB 3232 law that has set the stage for reducing carbon emissions, by 2030, 40% below 1990 levels from California’s residential and commercial buildings. We need the ZEB and updated EV codes to achieve these climate goals.

Currently, relying on methane also means there are methane leaks during both production and distribution. An intense GHG, methane is toxic and destructive, measurably as bad as the production and use of coal. Efforts to cap methane leaks in our city have been important. Eliminating the ongoing use of methane advances public health. Indoor air quality can also improve.

The proposed ZEB and EV ordinance to amend the Municipal Code would facilitate the construction of all-electric buildings and homes for residents, workers, students and visitors to enjoy a climate- resilient and safe future with efficiency and economy. By requiring the elimination of fossil gas infrastructure as the norm, Santa Monica’s decadeslong leadership in sustainability helps to set a new standard, with scores of like-minded Californian cities.

Following our City Sustainability Plan and ground-breaking Sustainability Rights Ordinance, established with the bold vision and hard work of the City and community— including young people’s dedicated engagement and aspirations— you now, as our council leaders, can affirm our determination to help create a vibrant future.

Have confidence in approving the ZEB and EV codes before you. I trust that you will.

With respect,
Ms. Cris Gutierrez
Santa Monica resident
Item 10.C
09/27/22
23 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) September 27, 2022
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main St
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Clean Power Alliance (CPA), the Community Choice Aggregator for Santa Monica and 31 other communities in Southern California, writes in support of the proposed zero-emission building reach code and the proposed EV charger reach code in new construction (Item 10C). This proposal will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and should have negligible impacts on both affordability and grid reliability for Santa Monica customers.

California is on a rapid pathway towards zero-emissions buildings and vehicles. In August 2021, the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the Building Decarbonization Assessment. The Building Decarbonization Assessment made clear that California must urgently implement a plan to cut pollution from homes and buildings through aggressive electrification of new and existing buildings to achieve the state’s new 2035 carbon neutral goal. In August 2022, the state passed a regulation that would ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars beginning in 2035. The proposed Santa Monica ordinance is aligned with both goals and allows Santa Monica to take a leadership role on these state initiatives, without sacrificing customer affordability, or grid reliability.

Reliability: Clean Power Alliance has taken an active role to ensure that that there will be a reliable and clean source of electricity to power the state’s transition to a decarbonized future.

To date, CPA has procured 1,915 megawatts of renewable energy and 1,027 megawatts of storage, which has reduced more than one million tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while improving system reliability. This has made CPA the third largest purchaser of battery storage in the state and helps ensure reliability for CPA customers even when the sun is not shining, and the wind is not blowing. In addition to adding new resources onto the grid, CPA is part of the state-wide effort to encourage customers to use more energy at “off-peak” or low demand times, and less energy at “on-peak” or high demand times. This will help flatten electricity demand and reduce major energy spikes.

Item 10.C
09/27/22
24 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) Affordability: Zero-emissions buildings are affordable to build, outfit, and operate. All-electric homes are cheaper to build1 than gas-heated buildings, saving between $1,500 to $6,000 in construction costs. Rebates for electric building appliances help bring down the costs of supplying a building with technologies that are powered by electricity. Most recently, in August 2022, the state approved the Equitable Building Decarbonization Program, which will create a statewide incentive program for lowcarbon building technologies, which can be used to bring down costs of technologies like electric heat pumps, space and water heaters, and other efficient electric technologies. CPA also has a number of programs to assist low-income customers with paying their electricity bills, providing subsidies of over $10 million since the onset of Covid-19.

Green House Gas Emissions: CPA is proud to provide most electricity customers in the City of Santa Monica with 100% renewable energy that does not contribute to dirty air or to GHG emissions that exacerbate climate change. Typically, an all-electric building produces about 30-60% the GHG emissions as a mixed-fuel use building2
. In Santa Monica however, emissions from all-electric buildings would be closer to 100% greenhouse gas free because over 90% of the city’s residents and businesses receive 100% renewable energy through Clean Power Alliance.

The buildings we construct today will last for decades to come, and building them with fossil fuel infrastructure locks in decades of additional fossil fuel emissions. Local cities and counties therefore have an important role in ensuring that they are built to a standard that helps the state meet its goals around clean air, climate change, health and more. That is why we urge the City of Santa Monica to approve the proposed ordinance. CPA looks forward with continuing to partner with the city to achieve their clean energy goals.

Sincerely,
Gina Goodhill
Director, Government Affairs
Clean Power Alliance
1 Synapse Energy, “Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings” https://www.synapseenergy.com/sites/default/files/Decarbonization-Heating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf 2 Ethree, “Residential Building Electrification in California https://www.ethree.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April _2019.pdf
Item 10.C
09/27/22
25 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)

THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA MONICA
P.O. Box 1265 Santa Monica, CA 90406-1265
Phone: 310.394.4661 www.lwvsantamonica.org
#MakingDemocracyWork
September 27, 2022
Re: City Council Agenda Item 10.C.

Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers The League of Women Voters of Santa Monica urges the Santa Monica City Council to support the amendments to the Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Codes 2022 in the California Green Building Standards Code, as outlined in the September 27, 2022 City Council Agenda Item 10c staff report.

Recent reports by the International Panel on Climate Change outline the risks ahead if we do not act. Many are already becoming realities. Our current drought and the recent heat waves illustrate the point.

A very important climate solution is available to us today: electrify our energy uses, including for buildings and cars, and electrify quickly.

Santa Monica has been a leader on addressing climate-related issues. These policy updates are another example of Santa Monica doing what needs to be done. We strongly urge you to vote in support of these updated building codes.

Restricting gas in new construction will lower greenhouse gases. 30% of Santa Monica’s carbon emissions come from the use of methane gas in buildings. The leakage of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) during its production and distribution makes it almost as destructive as the production and use of coal.

And increasing the number of electric vehicle (EV) charging facilities will accelerate the adoption of EVs. 64% of Santa Monica’s carbon emissions come from vehicle transportation, predominantly private cars.

Our recommendation is based on the following policy positions of the League of Women Voters of the United States (LWVUS) and the League of Women Voters of California (LWVC).

The LWVUS supports the preservation of “the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the ecosystem, with maximum protection of public health and the environment.” Further, it supports “environmentally sound policies that reduce energy growth rates, emphasize energy conservation and encourage the use of renewable resources.” The LWVUS promotes “measures to reduce pollution from mobile and secondary sources.” The LWVC promotes “policies that mitigate impacts of climate change by adaptation in urban, rural, agricultural and natural settings.” Also, “Local governments should promote energy conservation, especially in relation to building codes…” For these reasons, we support the approval of the amendment to the City Building Codes as outlined in September 27, 2022 Agenda Item 10c.

Thank you,
Barbara Inatsugu
President of Record / Leadership Team
League of Women Voters of Santa Monica

OFFICERS
Co-Presidents
Barbara Inatsugu
Angela Scott
Vice President,
Program
Barbara Inatsugu
Vice President, Admin
Angela Scott
Secretary
Sharon Hart
Treasurer
Karen Carrey

DIRECTORS
Cathie Gentile
Karen S. Gunn
Jackie Pepper
Ann Williams
Item 10.C
09/27/22
26 of 26 Item 10.C
09/27/22

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gigi Decavalles-Hughes, Director, Finance Department, Revenue Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution Approving the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”) to Issue Revenue Bonds for the Benefit of 710 Broadway Affordable, LP
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hold a public hearing under the requirements of the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and,

2. Adopt a resolution approving the issuance of California Municipal Finance Authority bonds in an amount not-to-exceed $25,000,000 for the benefit of 710 Broadway Affordable LP or a related or successor entity for the purpose of financing or refinancing the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 710 Broadway, Santa Monica.

Executive Summary
710 Broadway Affordable LP (“Borrower”), a developer of affordable housing at 710 Broadway in Santa Monica, has requested the City’s approval for the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”), a joint powers authority of which the City is a member, to issue revenue obligations (“Bonds”) in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000 to finance the project. To qualify as tax exempt facility bonds for a residential rental project pursuant to Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code and the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”), the elected representatives of the City must approve the issuance of the Bonds at a public hearing. A proposed resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds by CMFA is attached as Attachment A.

12.A
Packet Pg. 1071
2 of 3
Approval of the Bonds does not obligate the City financially in any way and it is not an approval of the Project for any other purpose.

Discussion
The CMFA was formed to assist local governments, non-profit organizations, and businesses with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds aimed at improving the standard of living of California. The CMFA is a public entity, separate and apart from each member, and the debts and obligations of the CMFA do not constitute debts, liabilities, or obligations of the members. The City is a member of the CMFA. However, there are no costs associated with membership in the CMFA and the City will in no way become exposed to any financial liability by reason of its membership in the CMFA. In addition, participation by the City in the CMFA will not impact the City’s appropriations limits and will not constitute any type of indebtedness by the City. Outside of holding the TEFRA hearing and adopting the required resolution no other participation or activity of the City or the City Council with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will be required.

The CMFA proposes to issue up to $25 million of tax-exempt revenue bonds for the purposes of making a loan to Borrower, a partnership of which Related California ("Developer") or a related person to the Developer is general partner, for: (1) the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 710 Broadway, Santa Monica, California, and (2) paying certain costs of issuance in connection with such financing or refinancing.

The Bonds to be issued by the CMFA on behalf of the Borrower will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower. The City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability, or responsibility for the repayment of the Bonds. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.

The Board of Directors of the California Foundation for Stronger Communities, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (the “Foundation”), acts as the Board of

12.A
Packet Pg. 1072
3 of 3
Directors for the CMFA. Through its conduit issuance activities, the CMFA shares a portion of the issuance fees it receives with its member communities and donates a portion of these issuance fees to the Foundation for the support of local charities. With respect to the City of Santa Monica, it is expected that that a portion of the issuance fee attributable to the City will be granted by the CMFA to the general fund of the City. Such grant may be used for any lawful purpose of the City.

As required by law, a public hearing notice was published in The Santa Monica Daily Press at least 7 days prior to the hearing date.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The issuance of the Bonds will have no financial impact to the City other than it is expected that CMFA will provide a small portion of the issuance fees to the City. The CMFA will act as issuer and perform all necessary legal and administrative responsibilities associated with the financing. The Bonds are special, limited obligations of CMFA payable solely through the repayment of the loans from the CMFA, which repayment is used to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds. The Bonds issued by CMFA are not an obligation of the City or any CMFA member. Neither the faith or credit, nor the taxing power of the City, any CMFA member, the State or any other political subdivision is pledged to the repayment of the Bonds.

Prepared By: David Carr, Assistant City Treasurer
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 2022-9-27 - TEFRA Resolution
B. Written Comment

12.A
Packet Pg. 1073
1 City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022 Santa Monica, California

RESOLUTION NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING OR

REFINANCING THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT, AND EQUIPPING OF A MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT 710

BROADWAY, SANTA MONICA
WHEREAS, 710 Broadway Affordable, LP (the “Borrower”) a partnership of which Related California (the “Developer”) or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”) adopt a plan of financing providing for the issuance of exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project pursuant to Section 142(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such exempt facility bonds in one or more series from time to time, and at no time to exceed $25,000,000 in aggregate principal amount (the “Bonds”), to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 710 Broadway, Santa Monica, California (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the “City Council”) is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the “applicable elected representatives” required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the Borrower have requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: 2022-9-27 - TEFRA Resolution [Revision 2] (5343 : TEFRA Public Hearing) 2 Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the City; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall comply with the public approval requirements of Section 147(f) of the Code; provided, however, that this Resolution is neither intended to, nor shall it constitute, an approval by the City Council of the Project for any other purpose; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority.

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

SECTION 1. The foregoing resolutions are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitutes approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, both for the purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located and as required by Section 4 of the Agreement. This resolution, however, shall not constitute an approval by the City Council of the Project for any other purposes, nor does it constitute an approval of the underlying credit or financial structure of the Bonds.

SECTION 3. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City is not a party to any of the financing documents relating to the Bonds and the City shall

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: 2022-9-27 - TEFRA Resolution [Revision 2] (5343 : TEFRA Public Hearing) 3 have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds.

SECTION 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing or refinancing to acquire or construct the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein.

SECTION 5. The officers, employees, and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the issuance of the Bonds and otherwise to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution.

SECTION 6. 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

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: 2022-9-27 - TEFRA Resolution [Revision 2] (5343 : TEFRA Public Hearing) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ellen Hannan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 4:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; David Martin; David White
Subject: Item 12 A on September 27, 2022 City Council Agenda

EXTERNAL
The issue of bonds to a private developer will cost the city tax. The issue fee will be paid by the City and the amount is not quoted here. Since we are in a financial squeeze I suggest you postpone this vote.

There is no guarantee that this building will be 100% affordable. There will be a large area of commerce space.

I would suggest you postpone this vote and require more concrete information from this large developher.

Ellen Hannan
1218 9th St #6
Santa Monica CA 90401
Speptem 22, 2022
Item 12.A
09/27/22
Item 12.A
09/27/22

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1077 Attachment: Written Comment (5343 : TEFRA Public Hearing) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 12.B
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Engineering and Street Services
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution and a Public Hearing to Approve the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall on a Portion of First Court between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue; and Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance modifying section 3.36.150 formally declaring First Court Promenade as a pedestrian mall and prohibiting vehicular traffic thereon Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hold a public hearing, receive public comment, and approve establishment of a pedestrian mall along a southern portion of 1st Court between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (“First Court Promenade”); and

2. Confirm the determination that the environmental impacts regarding the establishment of First Court Promenade were analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report certified by City Council on July 14, 2022; and

3. Adopt the attached resolution ordering the establishment of First Court Promenade.

4. Introduce an ordinance for first reading modifying section 3.36.150 of Chapter 3 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to formally declare First Court Promenade as a pedestrian mall; and prohibit vehicular traffic thereon.

Summary
On May 24, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11420 declaring its intention to establish a pedestrian mall in Santa Monica’s Downtown District along a southern portion of First Court between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue. A public hearing date of September 27, 2022 was set for this consideration. This proposed pedestrian mall is an integral part of the Ocean Avenue Project Development Agreement (“Project”) that was approved by the Council on July 14, 2022, and subsequently approved via Ordinance 2710 (CCS) on July 26, 2022. The proposed

12.B
Packet Pg. 1078
2 of 6
pedestrian mall would remain as a public right-of-way that is designated for pedestrian use, improving the overall pedestrian experience, and would better integrate the Project into the larger Downtown multi-modal circulation network to further activate the western and northern edges of the Downtown area. As part of the Project, the northern portion of the First Court alley would also be reconfigured to maintain vehicular access, allowing exit onto 2nd Street.

Background
The Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960, California Streets and Highways Code Sections 11000 et seq. (the “Pedestrian Mall Law”), authorizes municipalities to close streets to vehicular traffic and establish pedestrian malls. The City of Santa Monica (“City”) used this law to establish the Third Street Mall in 1963 to create a pedestrian zone that has added to the vitality and vibrancy of Downtown Santa Monica. The Third Street Mall (the “Promenade”) has served the public interest during the past sixty years while allowing for better multi-modal circulation in the Downtown District.

Discussion
On May 24, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11420 declaring its intention to establish a pedestrian mall in Santa Monica’s Downtown District along a southern portion of First Court between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (the “First Court Promenade”). City Council considered and approved the Ocean Avenue Project Development Agreement on July 14, 2022. State law requires a public hearing to be held 90 days following the approved resolution of intention, thus the public hearing for final consideration would be held on September 27, 2022. This public hearing is required for Council to conduct a final determination to establish First Court Promenade as a pedestrian mall. A first reading of an ordinance (Attachment G) would establish a pedestrian mall, known as the First Court Promenade, and prohibit vehicles, except for emergency, utility, and/or maintenance/service vehicles.

Key considerations for establishment of First Court Promenade as a pedestrian mall included confirming that the Project developer owns all property abutting the southern portion of First Court between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue. Once developed, that portion of First Court alley adjacent to the Project Site would be prioritized for pedestrian use by establishment of First Court Promenade as a

12.B
Packet Pg. 1079
3 of 6
pedestrian mall. Once established, First Court Promenade would necessitate the rerouting of southbound vehicular travel on First Court to Second Street (rather than to Santa Monica Boulevard) via a new midblock, one-way, east-bound connection as depicted in Figure 1. This redirected portion of the public alley would be located on private property. With the establishment of the proposed pedestrian mall, First Court would remain a public right-of-way. The Developer is obligated to clean, repair and maintain the surface of the Pedestrian Mall and its improvements as provided in the Development Agreement for the Project.

Figure 1 - Map showing the proposed pedestrian mall along First Court adjacent to Santa Monica Boulevard
Process for Establishment of the Proposed Pedestrian Mall The pedestrian mall Act requires the City to notify the public, including potentially affected property owners and tenants, prior to the City Council’s ultimate decision whether to establish the pedestrian mall.

12.B
Packet Pg. 1080
4 of 6
Council approved the Resolution of Intention to establish a pedestrian mall along First Court on May 24, 2022, which was the required first step in the process. The City recorded said document with the Los Angeles County Recorder Office (Attachment A).

The public hearing date of September 27, 2022, was set for City Council to make a decision on the establishment of the proposed pedestrian mall, including hearing any protests or objections and claims relating to the establishment of the pedestrian mall.

Public Outreach
Following adoption of the Resolution of Intent to establish the pedestrian mall at the May 24, 2022 meeting, City staff provided notices of the proposed pedestrian mall and September 27, 2022 public hearing date, as further described, below.

The City Engineer posted and mailed the approved Resolution of Intent, and recorded the Resolution of Intent with the County of Los Angeles Recorder, as required by Streets and Highways Code. Specific milestones include:

1. On June 6, 2022 - within the 30-day period following the May 24, 2022 City Council meeting - the Resolution of Intent was recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder.

2. On June 23, 2022 - at least 90 days prior to the September 27, 2022 City Council public hearing - copies of the recorded notice were posted.

3. On July 28, 2022 - at least 45 days prior to the September 27, 2022 City Council public hearing - a public notice including a copy of the recorded Resolution of Intent was mailed to surrounding properties adjacent to the project site along Ocean Avenue, Arizona Avenue, 2nd Street and Santa Monica Boulevard.

4. In addition to the required noticing described above, a notice of public hearing was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press 10 days prior to the September 27, 2022 City Council public hearing.

5. A notice was emailed to utility companies on August 29, 2022.

Other Considerations/Legal Requirements
The City does not intend to form an assessment district to pay for the proposed

12.B
Packet Pg. 1081
5 of 6
improvements, and instead would require the Project developer to improve and maintain the proposed pedestrian mall to the City’s satisfaction.

Environmental Review
The establishment of a proposed pedestrian mall is part of the Ocean Avenue Project Development Agreement that was analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). At a public hearing on July 14, 2022, the City Council took the following actions: 1) Affirm that the Ocean Avenue Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; 2) Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project in compliance with CEQA (Resolution 11442 (CCS)); and 3) Adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations based upon the Final EIR and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; (Resolution 11443 (CCS)).

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
06/12/2018
(Attachment B)
Preliminary review and discussion of the updated design concept for a new mixed-use development project consisting of commercial, hotel, museum, and residential uses,
including the retention and rehabilitation of two Citydesignated Landmark buildings at the property located at 101 Santa Monica Boulevard (Development Agreement
Application 13DEV-004)
05/24/2022
(Attachment C)
Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Intention to Establish a pedestrian mall on a Portion of First Court Between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue.
07/14/2022 and
7/26/2022
(Attachments
D and E)
Adoption of Resolutions and Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to approve the Ocean Avenue Project
Development Agreement on July 14, 2022;
Adoption of Ordinance 2710 (CCS) on Second Reading
approving the Ocean Avenue Project Development
Agreement on July 26, 2022.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended actions. Future surface improvements to the area proposed for

12.B
Packet Pg. 1082
6 of 6
pedestrian mall designation and proposed pedestrian protection devices (such as bollards) would be installed and maintained by the developer. The developer would maintain the proposed pedestrian mall pursuant to the terms of the development agreement and maintenance agreement for the Project.

Prepared By: Joshua Carvalho, Civil Engineer
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall B. June 12, 2018 City Council Meeting
C. May 24, 2022 City Council Meeting
D. July 14, 2022 City Council Meeting
E. July 26, 2022 City Council Meeting
F. Resolution for the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall G. Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150
H. Written Comment

12.B
Packet Pg. 1083

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1084 Attachment: Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1091 Attachment: Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: Recorded Resolution of Intention to Establish a Pedestrian Mall (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a 1 City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

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

ESTABLISHING A PEDESTRIAN MALL ON A PORTION OF FIRST COURT

BETWEEN SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD AND ARIZONA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960, California Streets and Highways Code Sections 11000 et seq. (the “Pedestrian Mall Law”), authorizes municipalities to close streets to vehicular traffic and to establish pedestrian malls; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) established the Third Street Mall in 1963 to create a pedestrian zone that has added to the vitality and vibrancy of Downtown Santa Monica and which has served the public interest and not unduly inconvenienced vehicular traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element of its General Plan (the “LUCE”) designates the properties located in Santa Monica’s Downtown District on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and Second Street commonly known as 101 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1337 Ocean Avenue, 1333 Ocean Avenue, 1327 Ocean Avenue and 129 Santa Monica Boulevard (the “Project Site”) as a site 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 (LUCE Policy D1.5); and
WHEREAS, the LUCE states to “[p]rioritize pedestrian environment above all other modes” in the Downtown District (LUCE, p. 4.0-18) and LUCE Policy B4.14 is to

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: Resolution for the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish 2 “discourage north-south alley access to Santa Monica Boulevard and explore alternative routing;” and
WHEREAS, LUCE Policy D9.6 is to “improve the aesthetic appearance of the alleys, and where appropriate incorporate the alleys into the pedestrian system;” and WHEREAS, the City’s Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”), a specific plan governing the Downtown District, designates the Project Site as one of three Established Large Sites that have the potential to accommodate significant new development and provide significant community benefits (DCP p. 30 and Illustration 4.1 Downtown Districts, p. 174); and
WHEREAS, BELLE VUE PLAZA, a California limited partnership, and OCEAN AVENUE PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, collectively the owners of the Project Site (“Project Developer”) has proposed to develop the Project Site with a mixed-use housing, hotel, cultural uses, and retail/restaurant project, which incorporates two City-designated landmarks and includes publicly-accessible open space (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is located on both the west and east side of First Court, an approximately 20’-wide, north-south public alley connecting Arizona Avenue (on the north) to Santa Monica Boulevard (on the south) that currently allows for oneway vehicular travel southbound from Arizona Avenue to Santa Monica Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Project proposes to re-route southbound vehicular travel on First Court to Second Street (rather than Santa Monica Boulevard) via a new east-west public alley to be located on the northern portion of the Project Site, (the “Re-Routed

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1096 Attachment: Resolution for the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish 3 First Court”) pursuant to the terms of a Development Agreement for the Project and an easement agreement for the Re-Routed First Court public alley; and WHEREAS, in order to facilitate pedestrian access in the public right-of-way adjacent to the Project Site, on May 24, 2022, the City council declared its intention to establish a new pedestrian mall on a portion of First Court adjacent to the Project Site, between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue, as described and shown on Exhibits A and B (the “First Court Promenade”); and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2022, the City Council approved the Development Agreement for the Project; and
WHEREAS, consistent with LUCE and DCP policies, the First Court Promenade will (a) allow for uninterrupted pedestrian access on the north sidewalk along Santa Monica Boulevard between Second Street and Ocean Avenue and (b) connect to a publicly-accessible pedestrian paseo in the Project providing pedestrian access through the Project between Ocean Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard as well to the elevators for the publicly-accessible observation deck pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement for the Project; and
WHEREAS, east-west through traffic on both Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue will be maintained; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica does not intend to form an assessment district to pay for the proposed improvements and instead will require the Project Developer to improve and maintain the proposed First Court Promenade pursuant to the terms of a Development Agreement for the Project and an associated maintenance agreement for the First Court Promenade; and

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1097 Attachment: Resolution for the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish 4 WHEREAS, the City has complied with the noticing procedures required by the Pedestrian Mall Law for the establishment of a pedestrian mall; and WHEREAS, on September 27, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to hear protests and objections to the establishment of the proposed First Court Promenade and to review any claims of damages from those holding any legal or equitable interest in any real property which might suffer legal damage by reason of the establishment of the proposed First Court Promenade; and WHEREAS, the City has not received any written objections from landowners representing a majority of the frontage of the proposed First Court Promenade; and WHEREAS, after considering all protests and objections, if any, the City Council desires to adopt this resolution, establishing the First Court Promenade.

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

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to the Pedestrian Mall Law, the City Council establishes the First Court Promenade located on a portion of First Court between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue, a general description of which is as follows: Fist Court between the northwesterly line of Santa Monica Boulevard and a parallel line approximately 141 feet northwesterly and 20 feet wide; and an area of approximately 20 ft south of the northwesterly line of Santa Monica Boulevard 30 feet wide as shown on Exhibit B, subject to the conditions stated herein.

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1098 Attachment: Resolution for the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish 5 SECTION 3. Santa Monica Boulevard and the portion of First Court located between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (the “Remaining First Court”) are the only “intersecting streets," as defined Streets and Highways Code Section 11008.

SECTION 4. The intersection of First Court and Santa Monica Boulevard is the only “mall intersection,” as defined in Streets and Highways Code Section 11007. Eastwest vehicular access along Santa Monica Boulevard will remain open.

SECTION 5. The City Council determines that the public interest and convenience require the establishment of the proposed First Court Promenade and that vehicular traffic will not be unduly inconvenienced thereby because alternative vehicular travel will be provided via the Re-Routed First Court prior to implementation of the First Court Promenade.

SECTION 6. The City Council intends to adopt an ordinance prohibiting vehicular travel on the proposed First Court Promenade except for emergency, utility, and/or maintenance/service vehicles.

SECTION 7. Damages, if any, allowed or awarded to any property owner by reason of the establishment of the proposed First Court Promenade will be paid solely from funds provided by the Project Developer.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify 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

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1099 Attachment: Resolution for the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish 6 Adopted and approved this ___ day of _______ 2022.
___________________
Sue Himmelrich, Mayor
I, Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that Resolution No. _____ (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of the Santa Monica City Council held on the ___ day of ______ 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
_____________________________
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1100 Attachment: Resolution for the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish 7 EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FIRST COURT PROMENADE

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1101 Attachment: Resolution for the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish 8 12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1102 Attachment: Resolution for the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish 9 EXHIBIT B

MAP OF PROPOSED FIRST COURT PROMENADE

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1103 Attachment: Resolution for the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish 10 12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1104 Attachment: Resolution for the Establishment of a Pedestrian Mall [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish 1 City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NO. ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MODIFYING SECTION 3.36.150 OF CHAPTER 3 OF THE SANTA MONICA

MUNICIPAL CODE, TO ESTABLISH THE FIRST COURT PROMENADE ON A

PORTION OF FIRST COURT BETWEEN SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD AND

ARIZONA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA AS A PEDESTRIAN MALL; AND PROHIBIT VEHICULAR TRAFFIC THEREON WHEREAS, the Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960, California Streets and Highways Code Sections 11000 et seq. (the “Pedestrian Mall Law”), authorizes municipalities to close streets to vehicular traffic and to establish pedestrian malls; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) established the Third Street Mall in 1963 to create a pedestrian zone that has added to the vitality and vibrancy of Downtown Santa Monica and which has served the public interest and not unduly inconvenienced vehicular traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element of its General Plan (the “LUCE”) designates the properties located in Santa Monica’s Downtown District on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and Second Street commonly known as 101 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1337 Ocean Avenue, 1333 Ocean Avenue, 1327 Ocean Avenue and 129 Santa Monica Boulevard (the “Project Site”) as a site 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 (LUCE Policy D1.5); and

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1105 Attachment: Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150 [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian 2 WHEREAS, the LUCE states to “[p]rioritize pedestrian environment above all other modes” in the Downtown District (LUCE, p. 4.0-18) and LUCE Policy B4.14 is to “discourage north-south alley access to Santa Monica Boulevard and explore alternative routing;” and
WHEREAS, LUCE Policy D9.6 is to “improve the aesthetic appearance of the alleys, and where appropriate incorporate the alleys into the pedestrian system;” and WHEREAS, the City’s Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”), a specific plan governing the Downtown District, designates the Project Site as one of three Established Large Sites that have the potential to accommodate significant new development and provide significant community benefits (DCP p. 30 and Illustration 4.1 Downtown Districts, p. 174); and
WHEREAS, BELLE VUE PLAZA, a California limited partnership, and OCEAN AVENUE PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, collectively the owners of the Project Site (“Project Developer”) has proposed to develop the Project Site with a mixed-use housing, hotel, cultural uses, and retail/restaurant project, which incorporates two City-designated landmark and includes publicly-accessible open space (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is located on both the west and east side of First Court, an approximately 20’-wide, north-south public alley connecting Arizona Avenue (on the north) to Santa Monica Boulevard (on the south) that currently allows for oneway vehicular travel southbound from Arizona Avenue to Santa Monica Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Project proposes to re-route southbound vehicular travel on First Court to Second Street (rather than Santa Monica Boulevard) via a new east-west

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1106 Attachment: Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150 [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian 3 public alley to be located on the northern portion of the Project Site, (the “Re-Routed First Court”) pursuant to the terms of a Development Agreement for the Project and an easement agreement for the Re-Routed First Court public alley; and WHEREAS, in order to facilitate pedestrian access in the public right-of-way adjacent to the Project Site, on May 24, 2022, the City council declared its intention to establish a new pedestrian mall on a portion of First Court adjacent to the Project Site, between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue, as shown on Exhibits A and B (the “First Court Promenade”); and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2022, the City Council approved the Development Agreement for the Project; and
WHEREAS, consistent with LUCE and DCP policies, the First Court Promenade will (a) allow for uninterrupted pedestrian access on the north sidewalk along Santa Monica Boulevard between Second Street and Ocean Avenue and (b) connect to a publicly-accessible pedestrian paseo in the Project providing pedestrian access through the Project between Ocean Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard as well to the elevators for the publicly-accessible observation deck pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement for the Project; and
WHEREAS, east-west through traffic on both Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue will be maintained; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica does not intend to form an assessment district to pay for the proposed improvements and instead will require the Project Developer to improve and maintain the proposed First Court Promenade pursuant to the

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1107 Attachment: Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150 [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian 4 terms of a Development Agreement for the Project and an associated maintenance agreement for the Pedestrian Mall; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as set forth below to hear protests and objections to the establishment of the proposed First Court Promenade and to review any claims of damages from those holding any legal or equitable interest in any real property which might suffer legal damage by reason of the establishment of the proposed First Court Promenade; and WHEREAS, after considering all protests and objections, if any, the City Council adopted Resolution No. _____ (CCS), establishing the First Court Promenade.

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.

SECTION 2. Section 3.36.150 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended, as follows:

3.36.150 Pedestrian mall.

A. The Council does hereby declare and determine that a pedestrian mall, known as the Third Street Promenade, is finally established under the Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960, and that a general description of said pedestrian mall is as follows:

Third Street between the southeasterly line of Wilshire Boulevard and the northwesterly line of Arizona Avenue, and between the southeasterly line of Arizona Avenue and the northwesterly line of Santa Monica Boulevard and between the southeasterly line of Santa Monica Boulevard and the northwesterly line of Broadway.

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1108 Attachment: Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150 [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian 5 B. The Council does hereby declare and determine that a pedestrian mall, known as the First Court Promenade, is finally established under the Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960, and that a general description of said pedestrian mall is as follows:

First Court between the northwesterly line of Santa Monica Boulevard and a parallel line approximately 160 feet northwesterly and 20 feet wide; and an area of approximately 20 ft south of the northwesterly line of Santa Monica Boulevard 30 feet wide.

C. No vehicles shall be permitted on the First Court Promenade, except for emergency, utility, and/or maintenance/service vehicles.

SECTION 3. 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 4. 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, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. 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

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1109 Attachment: Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150 [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian 6 official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1110 Attachment: Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150 [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian 7 Adopted and approved this ___ day of _______ 2022.
___________________
Sue Himmelrich, Mayor
I, Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that Resolution No. _____ (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of the Santa Monica City Council held on the ___ day of ______ 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
_____________________________
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1111 Attachment: Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150 [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian 8 EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FIRST COURT PROMENADE

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1112 Attachment: Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150 [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian 9 12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1113 Attachment: Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150 [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian 10 EXHIBIT B

MAP OF PROPOSED FIRST COURT PROMENADE

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1114 Attachment: Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150 [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian 11 12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1115 Attachment: Ordinance modifying section: 3.36.150 [Revision 1] (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Janna Boelke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:59 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Cc: Roxanne Tanemori; David Martin; Joshua Carvalho; Jeff Worthe Subject: Re: Agenda Item 12.B, Establishment of Pedestrian Mall in Connection with Ocean Avenue Hotel Project

EXTERNAL
This email is being sent on behalf of Jeff Worthe.

Mayor Himmelrich and Honorable Councilmembers –
As you know, on June 14, 2022, after many years of community input and with overwhelming public support, the Council unanimously (6‐0) approved the Development Agreement for our Frank Gehry‐designed Ocean Avenue Project). An important component of the Project is creation of ground‐level open spaces that enhance the pedestrian experience into and throughout the Project. This includes re‐routing vehicular traffic through a new alley to be located on the northern side of the Project Site to 2nd Street and the creation of a walkable First Court Promenade (a "pedestrian mall") on the southern portion of First Court Alley leading to Santa Monica Blvd. You have already approved the Project including this concept, and the next step is to approve the resolution and ordinance required to establish the pedestrian mall.

As detailed in the Staff Report, the proposed pedestrian mall will significantly enhance the pedestrian experience by eliminating conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians on this very active segment of Santa Monica Boulevard between 2nd Street and Ocean Avenue. Please also note that we have agreed to be financially responsible for all construction and ongoing maintenance costs for the First Court Promenade and the new alley connecting to 2nd Street (as documented in the development agreement).

We sincerely appreciate the City Council’s ongoing support for the Project and its recognition of the benefits it will bring to the City of Santa Monica. Thanks for your consideration of this important next step to implement the Project.

Jeff Worthe
Janna M. Boelke | Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Worthe Real Estate Group
100 Wilshire Blvd Suite 1600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
o (310) 393-9653
[email protected] | worthe.com
Item 12.B
09/27/22
1 of 1 Item 12.B
09/27/22

12.B.h
Packet Pg. 1116 Attachment: Written Comment (5295 : Adoption of a Resolution and Public Hearing to establish a pedestrian mall on 1st Ct) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Recommendation to rescind the July 14, 2022, appointment of Kelly Creffield to the Human Services Commission; and, consider new appointment to the vacancy on the Commission with a term ending June 30, 2025 Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List_Human Services

16.A
Packet Pg. 1117
Revised 9/20/22 at 10am
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Human Services Commission
Name Application Date
Marie Manvel 7/15/2022
Willa F. Wells 7/25/2022
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 2
*Incumbents listed in red

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1118 Attachment: Applicant List_Human Services (5388 : 16.A. Rescind Human Services Appointment - Kelly Creffield (5 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Recommendation to accept Bruce Malarky's resignation from the Airport Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy.

Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Email_Resignation_Airport_B.Malarky_20220919_public
B. Written Comment

16.B
Packet Pg. 1119
1 Esterlina Lugo
Subject: RE: Airport Commissioner Resignation
From: Stelios Makrides <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:57 AM
To: Nikima Newsome <[email protected]>
Cc: Denise Anderson‐Warren <Denise.Anderson‐[email protected]>; Diana Hernandez <[email protected]>
Subject: Airport Commissioner Resignation
Good morning Nikima,
While I was on vacation the Chair of the Airport Commission received an email from Commissioner Malarky wanting to step down from the Commission due to a personal tragedy.

I spoke to the Chair last Friday and after a follow up email to the Commissioner he reaffirmed his decision to resign.

I never had a Commissioner resign before therefore I am asking for guidance for what you will like for me to do next, if any.

Thank you again,
Stelios Makrides
Public Works Department
Chief Operations Officer/Airport Director
(310) 434-2693
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1120 Attachment: Email_Resignation_Airport_B.Malarky_20220919_public (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ron Berinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 1:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

Because the Airport Commission acts “…in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to the Municipal Airport and to aviation matters generally to the extent that they affect the City,” the commission is required to deal with highly technical operational issues.

Despite these demands on Commissioner capabilities, there are no requirements to serve as an Airport Commissioner other than being both a resident of Santa Monica and over the age of 18. This is in direct contrast to all other technical Boards and Commissions where mandatory requirements for relevant technical expertise are laid out in detail (see the summary chart below). The result is twofold. First, the Airport Commission’s composition is not reflective of the many stakeholders involved with the airport’s complex operations and issues. Second, and arguably most important, because members of the City Council are also not required to have any technical aviation operations experience, there is no protocol to ensure the decision makers receive technically relevant and informed policy guidance. This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of nonaviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

Airport users and persons having a financial interest served by the Airport need to be represented on the Airport Commission. In addition, the Airport is an overall community asset, serving the community as a whole; members of the community who have no significant financial interest related to the airport also need to be represented.

All five members shall work or reside in Santa Monica or be tenants of the Santa Monica Airport. All members shall be over the age of 18. In addition, to achieve a balanced, inclusive, competent Airport Commission, a person must qualify under one of three categories:
1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning. 2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.

Item 16.B
09/27/22
1 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1121 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Without immediately revising Section 1016 of the City Charter and imposing the above requirements on members of the Airport Commission, the ongoing deficit of technical understanding of aviation issues could compromise airport operations with decisions and recommendations that may not be in the best interests of the nearby residents and other stakeholders of an operating airport.

Sincerely,
Ron Berinstein
Veteran Aviation Safety Presenter
Santa Monica - Los Angeles - Orange County - San Diego
Item 16.B
09/27/22
2 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1122 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 3 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Ron Berinstein CFII
FAASTeam Lead Representative ‐VNY
FAA WINGS Pro
Veteran Aviation Safety Presenter ‐ LA ‐ Orange County ‐ San Diego Affiliated with CP Aviation
Director/Webmaster scauwg.org website
Southern California Airspace Users Working Group
Item 16.B
09/27/22
3 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1123 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 4 www.scauwg.org
Visited by Thousands Monthly
(323) 394‐1331
Item 16.B
09/27/22
4 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1124 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Brian Reff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 7:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Item 16.B
09/27/22
5 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1125 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 Membership Categories and Qualifications:

All five members shall work or reside in Santa Monica or be tenants of the Santa Monica Airport. All members shall be over the age of 18. In addition, to achieve a balanced, inclusive, competent Airport Commission, a person must qualify under one of three categories:
1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO. 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Brian Reff
Item 16.B
09/27/22
6 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1126 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Bobby Loesch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 7:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Item 16.B
09/27/22
7 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1127 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 4 Membership Categories and Qualifications:

All five members shall work or reside in Santa Monica or be tenants of the Santa Monica Airport. All members shall be over the age of 18. In addition, to achieve a balanced, inclusive, competent Airport Commission, a person must qualify under one of three categories:
1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO. 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
[name]
Resident of Santa Monica
[if not a resident of Santa Monica, delete the line above - no need to indicate your City of residency if it is other than Santa Monica]
Item 16.B
09/27/22
8 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1128 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 5 ‐‐
Robert Loesch
720‐987‐4006
Item 16.B
09/27/22
9 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1129 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Estevan Roth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 6:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,

I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

Despite these demands on Commissioner capabilities, there are no requirements to serve as an Airport Commissioner other than being both a resident of Santa Monica and over the age of 18. This is in direct contrast to all other technical Boards and Commissions where mandatory requirements for relevant technical expertise are laid out in detail (see the summary chart below). The result is twofold. First, the Airport Commission’s composition is not reflective of the many stakeholders involved with the airport’s complex operations and issues. Second, and arguably most important, because members of the City Council are also not required to have any technical aviation operations experience, there is no protocol to ensure the decision makers receive technically relevant and informed policy guidance. This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of non‐aviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

Item 16.B
09/27/22
10 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1130 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 7 All five members shall work or reside in Santa Monica or be tenants of the Santa Monica Airport. All members shall be over the age of 18. In addition, to achieve a balanced, inclusive, competent Airport Commission, a person must qualify under one of three categories:

1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.
3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Estevan Roth
Item 16.B
09/27/22
11 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1131 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 8 Vernice Hankins
From: Vikram Sasi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 6:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

Despite these demands on Commissioner capabilities, there are no requirements to serve as an Airport Commissioner other than being both a resident of Santa Monica and over the age of 18. This is in direct contrast to all other technical Boards and Commissions where mandatory requirements for relevant technical expertise are laid out in detail (see the summary chart below). The result is twofold. First, the Airport Commission’s composition is not reflective of the many stakeholders involved with the airport’s complex operations and issues. Second, and arguably most important, because members of the City Council are also not required to have any technical aviation operations experience, there is no protocol to ensure the decision makers receive technically relevant and informed policy guidance. This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of non‐aviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

All five members shall work or reside in Santa Monica or be tenants of the Santa Monica Airport.  All members shall be over the age of 18.  In addition, to achieve a balanced, inclusive, competent Airport Commission, a person must qualify under one of three categories:
1)         Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2)         Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.
3)         Aviation Business:  At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Item 16.B
09/27/22
12 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1132 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 9 Without immediately revising Section 1016 of the City Charter and imposing the above requirements on members of the Airport Commission, the ongoing deficit of technical understanding of aviation issues could compromise airport operations with decisions and recommendations that may not be in the best interests of the nearby residents and other stakeholders of an operating airport.

Sincerely,
Vikram Sasi
Item 16.B
09/27/22
13 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1133 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 10 Vernice Hankins
From: Zach Goldberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 6:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Item 16.B
09/27/22
14 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1134 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 11 Membership Categories and Qualifications:

All five members shall work or reside in Santa Monica or be tenants of the Santa Monica Airport. All members shall be over the age of 18. In addition, to achieve a balanced, inclusive, competent Airport Commission, a person must qualify under one of three categories:
1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO. 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Zach Goldberg
Item 16.B
09/27/22
15 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1135 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 12 Vernice Hankins
From: Shoichiro Akiyama <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 5:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Item 16.B
09/27/22
16 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1136 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 13 Membership Categories and Qualifications:

All five members shall work or reside in Santa Monica or be tenants of the Santa Monica Airport. All members shall be over the age of 18. In addition, to achieve a balanced, inclusive, competent Airport Commission, a person must qualify under one of three categories:
1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO. 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Shoichiro Akiyama
Item 16.B
09/27/22
17 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1137 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Time To Fly Planes - Gary Palmer <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 8:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,

I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1138 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.
3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
--
Gary Palmer, CFI, Co‐Founder
Time To Fly Planes
http://timetoflyplanes.com/
Item 16.B
09/27/22
19 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1139 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Drew McCoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 7:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of non‐aviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

All five members shall work or reside in Santa Monica or be tenants of the Santa Monica Airport. All members shall be over the age of 18.

In addition, to achieve a balanced, inclusive, competent Airport Commission, a person must qualify under one of three categories:
1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning. 2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR

61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.

Item 16.B
09/27/22
20 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1140 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 4 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Drew McCoy
Private Pilot Certificate #3887116
Item 16.B
09/27/22
21 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1141 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: David Grant <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 7:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

Item 16.B
09/27/22
22 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1142 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 6 1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO. 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
David Grant
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 16.B
09/27/22
23 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1143 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 7 Item 16.B
09/27/22
24 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1144 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Christopher Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item #16.b. Sep 27, 2022, City Council Meeting - Need for Aviation input

EXTERNAL
Dear Council
Please revise Section 1016 of the City Charter to include the requirement for Aviation Technical experience/expertise per most commissions.

It is essential representation for the proper operation and safety of the airport and that of our community.

Those operating it today lack the expertise, guidelines and training to operate this safely.

Examples:
‐ hangars used for non aviation activities often containing hazardous materials ‐ cars/motorcycles stored and driven around the asphalt clearly a major hazard to aircraft ‐ non aviation related vehicles racing around the asphalt perimeter posing a hazard to aircraft ‐ unlicensed and uninsured businesses operating in the hangars ‐ people walking around the airport at night for exercise ‐ a flying school that requires adult management and oversight etc
We can and should do better.

Dr. C.Thomas
Item 16.B
09/27/22
25 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1145 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Charlton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; "[email protected]"@mx0a-00399d01.pphosted.com Cc: Charlton Breon
Subject: Qualifications for a new Airpot Commission

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,

I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1146 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.
3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,

Charlton D. Breon
Sent from Mail for Windows
To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
width= Virus-free.www.avg.com
Item 16.B
09/27/22
27 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Nate <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 12:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting Attachments: image.png

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

Despite these demands on Commissioner capabilities, there are no requirements to serve as an Airport Commissioner other than being both a resident of Santa Monica and over the age of 18. This is in direct contrast to all other technical Boards and Commissions where mandatory requirements for relevant technical expertise are laid out in detail (see the summary chart below). The result is twofold. First, the Airport Commission’s composition is not reflective of the many stakeholders involved with the airport’s complex operations and issues. Second, and arguably most important, because members of the City Council are also not required to have any technical aviation operations experience, there is no protocol to ensure the decision makers receive technically relevant and informed policy guidance. This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of non‐aviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

1. Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.

2. Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.

Item 16.B
09/27/22
28 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1148 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 3. Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Thanks,
Nathan Siahpush
310‐907‐6270
Item 16.B
09/27/22
29 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1149 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Moriah <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 12:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: qualifications for new Commissioner, wouldn't it be wise to have some knowledge in the arena you might be voting on?

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1150 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO. 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, My name is: Moriah C Slates
I reside @ 1427 Harvard St
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 16.B
09/27/22
31 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1151 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) Item 16.B
09/27/22
32 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1152 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: John Ringel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 1:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport Commissioner

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,

I am writing to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

Despite these demands on Commissioner capabilities, there are no requirements to serve as an Airport Commissioner other than being both a resident of Santa Monica and over the age of 18. This is in direct contrast to all other technical Boards and Commissions where mandatory requirements for relevant technical expertise are laid out in detail (see the summary chart below). The result is twofold. First, the Airport Commission’s composition is not reflective of the many stake holders involved with the airport’s complex operations and issues. Second,and arguably most important, because members of the City Council are also not required to have any technical aviation operations experience, there is no protocol to ensure the decision makers receive technically relevant and informed policy guidance. This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of non‐aviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1153 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 whole; members of the community who have no significant financial interest related to the airport also need to be represented.

2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.

3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

To put this in simple terms, would you require your doctor to have expertise in the field you are seeking medical advice or treatment? The same should apply for the position of SMO Airport Commissioner. This person must have an aviation background and knowledge of how an airport operates. To do otherwise would be a disservice to the airport tenants and to the city of Santa Monica as a whole.

Sincerely,

John Ringel
Retired B787 Captain
United Airlines
Item 16.B
09/27/22
34 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1154 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Blake Bobit <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 2:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,

I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

Despite these demands on Commissioner capabilities, there are no requirements to serve as an Airport Commissioner other than being both a resident of Santa Monica and over the age of 18.

This is in direct contrast to all other technical Boards and Commissions where mandatory requirements for relevant technical expertise are laid out in detail (see the summary chart below).

Item 16.B
09/27/22
35 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1155 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 The result is twofold. First, the Airport Commission’s composition is not reflective of the many stakeholders involved with the airport’s complex operations and issues. Second, and arguably most important, because members of the City Council are also not required to have any technical aviation operations experience, there is no protocol to ensure the decision makers receive technically relevant and informed policy guidance. This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of non-aviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

Item 16.B
09/27/22
36 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 3 1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning. 2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.
3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Blake Bobit
[email protected]
+1 310 251 2267
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 16.B
09/27/22
37 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 1:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: Eve Lopez Esq.; Eve Lopez
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

Item 16.B
09/27/22
38 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 5 1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO. 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Eve Lopez,
Sunset Park Resident
SMO Tenant
Item 16.B
09/27/22
39 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1159 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 6 Item 16.B
09/27/22
40 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 7 Item 16.B
09/27/22
41 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1161 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: ANTHONY SCHWARZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 4:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: airport commissioner replacement

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1162 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO. 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Tony Schwarz
(310) 344‐2197 cell
[email protected]
Item 16.B
09/27/22
43 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1163 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Marilyn Perna <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 3:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport Commission Requirements

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,

I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

Item 16.B
09/27/22
44 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 4 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Marilyn Perna
Item 16.B
09/27/22
45 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Barry Isaacson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 7:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

Despite these demands on Commissioner capabilities, there are no requirements to serve as an Airport Commissioner other than being both a resident of Santa Monica and over the age of 18. This is in direct contrast to all other technical Boards and Commissions where mandatory requirements for relevant technical expertise are laid out in detail (see the summary chart below). The result is twofold. First, the Airport Commission’s composition is not reflective of the many stakeholders involved with the airport’s complex operations and issues. Second, and arguably most important, because members of the City Council are also not required to have any technical aviation operations experience, there is no protocol to ensure the decision makers receive technically relevant and informed policy guidance. This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of non‐aviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

All five members shall work or reside in Santa Monica or be tenants of the Santa Monica Airport.  All members shall be over the age of 18.  In addition, to achieve a balanced, inclusive, competent Airport Commission, a person must qualify under one of three categories:
1)         Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2)         Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.

Item 16.B
09/27/22
46 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1166 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Barry Isaacson
Item 16.B
09/27/22
47 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Chris Sattlberger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1168 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 as a whole; members of the community who have no significant financial interest related to the airport also need to be represented.

All five members shall work or reside in Santa Monica or be tenants of the Santa Monica Airport. All members shall be over the age of 18. In addition, to achieve a balanced, inclusive, competent Airport Commission, a person must qualify under one of three categories:
1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO. 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Chris Sattlberger
Item 16.B
09/27/22
49 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 3 Item 16.B
09/27/22
50 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 4 Chris Sattlberger
(310) 694-1752
Item 16.B
09/27/22
51 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Lee Unger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 1:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,

I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

Thank you for your consideration of immediately aligning qualifications of members of the Airport Commission to reflect knowledge and experience in various sectors of aviation.

Despite these demands on Commissioner capabilities, there are no requirements to serve as an Airport Commissioner other than being both a resident of Santa Monica and over the age of 18. This is in direct contrast to all other technical Boards and Commissions where mandatory requirements for relevant technical expertise are laid out in detail (see the summary chart below). The result is twofold. First, the Airport Commission’s composition is not reflective of the many stakeholders involved with the airport’s complex operations and issues. Second, and arguably most important, because members of the City Council are also not required to have any technical aviation operations experience, there is no protocol to ensure the decision makers receive technically relevant and informed policy guidance. This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of non‐aviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

Item 16.B
09/27/22
52 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Thank you for revising Section 1016 of the City Charter whereas members of the Airport Commission are appropriately qualified in aviation operations and capable of best serving the City Council.

Sincerely,
Virginia "Lee" Unger
Item 16.B
09/27/22
53 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1173 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Michael Cannata <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 8:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: agenda item #16.b. 9/27/22

EXTERNAL
Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

Dear Council Members,

I am writing this council in support of the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky; however,
Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

Despite these demands on Commissioner capabilities, there are no requirements to serve as an Airport Commissioner other than being both a resident of Santa Monica and over the age of 18. This is in direct contrast to all other technical Boards and Commissions where mandatory requirements for relevant technical expertise are laid out in detail (see the summary chart below). The result is twofold. First, the Airport Commission’s composition is not reflective of the many stakeholders involved with the airport’s complex operations and issues. Second, and arguably most important, because members of the City Council are also not required to have any technical aviation operations experience, there is no protocol to ensure the decision makers receive technically relevant and informed policy guidance. This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of non‐aviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

1)         Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2)         Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.
3)         Aviation Business:  At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating Item 16.B
09/27/22
54 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,

Michael Cannata
michael cannata
[email protected]
Item 16.B
09/27/22
55 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Alice and Andy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request Eligibility Requirements

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,

I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

Despite these demands on Commissioner capabilities, there are no requirements to serve as an Airport Commissioner other than being both a resident of Santa Monica and over the age of 18. This is in direct contrast to all other technical Boards and Commissions where mandatory requirements for relevant technical expertise are laid out in detail (see the summary chart below). The result is twofold. First, the Airport Commission’s composition is not reflective of the many stakeholders involved with the airport’s complex operations and issues. Second, and arguably most important, because members of the City Council are also not required to have any technical aviation operations experience, there is no protocol to ensure the decision makers receive technically relevant and informed policy guidance. This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of non‐aviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning. 2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active Item 16.B
09/27/22
56 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 users or aviation tenants of SMO.
3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Andrew Kopetzky
Item 16.B
09/27/22
57 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Mark Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky has resigned

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please replace his seat with an active pilot and/or airport user.

Please ask your city attorney, Ivan Campbell, Airport Manager Stelios Makrides, or any airport staff member, for a recommendation, as to who should replace the seat on the airport commission. They will have valuable insight that should not be ignored.

Every city with an airport has an Airport Commission that has knowledgeable and experienced members of the aviation community – except for Santa Monica.

It is unethical and a disservice to all stake holders, to continually stack the airport commission with radical anti‐airport residents, most who purchased a home next to an airport.

I attend Airport Commission meetings. I am continually horrified at the blundering inaccurate discussions that take place. It is detrimental to our common goals of a cleaner, safer and quieter airport. Last night was full of speculation and uninformed comments ‐ no one had done any basic research. It was beyond embarrassing. This is not a functional government.

Joseph Schmitz is a comical cartoon character – who may have been a pilot in the 1960’s but babbles incoherently on tangential topics and continually wastes Airport Staff time. Diane Reynolds was recently appointed – she moved closer to the airport and then claims the pollution caused health problems. Other members don’t even show up for meetings (Commissioner Neri is in violation of attendance standards) or only talk about creating a park in ten years The Airport Commission acts “…in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to the Municipal Airport and to aviation matters generally to the extent that they affect the City.” The commission is required to deal with highly technical operational issues.

Item 16.B
09/27/22
58 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 This will only happen with an active professional and experienced aviation professional and not a crony of Zina Josephs. An aviation tenant and experienced pilot on the Airport Commission would create a validity that has been absent for decades.

Please protect our assets and our community and seek to work with people, who will guide you to make educated decisions based on expertise.

Thank you.

I recommend: Kate Scott and Eve Lopez, both respected residents of Santa Monica who are FAA licensed pilots and legally current.

Item 16.B
09/27/22
59 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Dave Hopkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27 2022 City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,

I am writing to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

Despite these demands on Commissioner capabilities, there are no requirements to serve as an Airport Commissioner other than being both a resident of Santa Monica and over the age of 18. This is in direct contrast to all other technical Boards and Commissions where mandatory requirements for relevant technical expertise are laid out in detail (see the summary chart below). The result is twofold. First, the Airport Commission’s composition is not reflective of the many stakeholders involved with the airport’s complex operations and issues. Second, and arguably most important, because members of the City Council are also not required to have any technical aviation operations experience, there is no protocol to ensure the decision makers receive technically relevant and informed policy guidance. This issue continues to increase in importance as the population of non‐aviation users expands its interaction with aviation operations on the field.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO.
3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Additionally, much airport staff time is wasted at airport commission meetings as airport staff have to explain the basics of aviation and airport operations to current commission members, wasting taxpayer time and resources.

Sincerely,
David J. Hopkins.
22+ year Ocean Park Santa Monica resident.
[email protected]
Item 16.B
09/27/22
61 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Andrew S. Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: Andrew S. Pomerantz
Subject: RE: Agenda Item Number 16.b. – September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Council Members,
I write to support the Council’s acceptance of the resignation of Airport Commissioner Bruce Malarky.

Before directing the City Clerk to post the vacancy, a critical issue must first be addressed.

To address this competency deficit on the Airport Commission, Section 1016 of the City Charter should be expanded to impose qualifications on members serving on the Airport Commission as follows:

Membership Categories and Qualifications:

Item 16.B
09/27/22
62 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 2 1) Community Resource: To qualify under this category, the person shall possess skills and expertise in professional fields of aviation or aviation related fields of benefit to SMO including but not limited to: financial planning and resources and emergency preparedness and planning.
2) Airport User: At least two members of the Commission shall be pilots holding a current valid pilot certificate (as defined by FAR 61.57) with a rating of private pilot or higher and each of whom must be active users or aviation tenants of SMO. 3) Aviation Business: At least one member of the Commission shall be an aviation business located at and operating an aviation business at SMO such as a flight school, FBO, flight club, aircraft mechanic, or other aviation business.

Sincerely,
Andrew
‐‐
Andrew S. Pomerantz, Esq.

Managing Partner / HOFFMAN & POMERANTZ, LLP
4307 Redondo Beach Boulevard
Lawndale, California 90260-3342
(310) 371-2597 – Office
(310) 542-6184 – Fax
(800) 539-3960 – Toll Free Office
[email protected] – E-Mail
www.weappear.com

Please consider the environment before printing this email. Reduce. Re-Use. Recycle.

Item 16.B
09/27/22
63 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) 3 Licensed to practice law in California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Minnesota and Washington

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is protected under United States Federal Law.

The contents are confidential and subject to privilege, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege. The information contained in this message is intended only for the use of the above-named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, disclosure or copying of this communication, including all attachments, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please: (1) notify us immediately by return email and telephone at (310) 371-2597; and, (2) destroy the original message.

To ensure compliance with the Internal Revenue Service Code, we hereby inform you that any tax advice that may be contained in this communication is not intended nor written to be used, and cannot be used, for the improper purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Notice to Debtors: This firm represents creditors in the enforcement of judgments and in the collection of debt. Any information provided by you may be used for this purpose.

Item 16.B
09/27/22
64 of 64 Item 16.B
09/27/22

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: Written Comment (5386 : 16.B. Resignation: Airport Commission_B.Malarky (2 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmember Brock that the City Manager provide City Council with an update on the proposed by-right mixed-use development project at Ocean Park and Lincoln Blvd. The City Manager is being asked to clarify a number of items and concerns raised by the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City including, but not limited to, the process for review and approval of the proposed development project, status of the application for the proposed development and the City’s review of the proposed project, the role of the City Council and Planning Commission in the review process, ways that the community can provide input, density bonus calculations, and statutory timeframes.

Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comment

16.C
Packet Pg. 1185
September 26, 2022
Re: Lincoln Center Project
Dear Santa Monica City Council:

Santa Monica Forward urges you to be mindful of your legal obligations and not meddle with a project subject to ministerial approval and protected by state law. Doing so will almost certainly invite enforcement action from HCD or Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, as recently described in the New York Times article “California Fights Its NIMBYs.”
As you know, California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) limits Santa Monica’s ability to deny or reduce the density of badly needing housing in our city. Moreover, the legislature has significantly strengthened the HAA in recent years and has added hefty fines for cities that violate the law. Fines start at $10,000 per unit, or $50,000 per unit for bad faith denials. For Lincoln Center, the fine for a bad faith denial would cost the city at least $26 million dollars, plus legal fees for the prevailing party.

Lincoln Center appears to comply with our zoning ordinance and our general plan with no adverse impact on health or safety. Therefore, the project must be approved. We urge you to follow the law and allow city staff to process the application in a timely manner and without political interference. To do anything otherwise risks disaster for the city.

More broadly, Santa Monica Forward urges City Council to support all efforts to increase housing production. Santa Monica has a severe housing shortage which has made it exceedingly difficult for newcomers to move here, for our children to stay, and for our businesses to recruit and retain employees. Our housing shortage is a crisis situation and Santa Monicans deserve a City Council that takes the crisis seriously.

Sincerely,
Abby Arnold and Carl Hansen
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
CC: City Manager David White
City Attorney Doug Sloan
Community Development Director David Martin
Planning Manager Jing Yeo
Item 16.C
09/27/22
1 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems
Subject: 9/27/2022 16c
Attachments: Fdidy7jUYAAw01J.jpg

EXTERNAL
I see Phil is still looking for ways to torpedo the Gelson's project. I would recommend Phil and other councilmembers stop looking for ways to torpedo the project unless they're willing to personally cough up the over $26 million it would cost the city in Housing Accountability Act fines to kill the project. I would also recommend that Phil stop wasting city staff's time like this.

Item 16.C
09/27/22
2 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: PLEASE REJECT THE PROJECT ON THE GELSON’S SITE Attachments: SM-ltr_Gelsons2.pdf
From: Joanne Pittard <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 11:50 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; David Martin <[email protected]> Subject: PLEASE REJECT THE PROJECT ON THE GELSON’S SITE

EXTERNAL

To:
1 Planning Director at [email protected]
2 City Manager at [email protected]
3 City Council at [email protected]
STOP! Our lovely city is presently overcrowded with high density buildings. Just drive down Lincoln Blvd and look at the huge apartment complexes being built. Traffic is a nightmare on our local streets. Parking is very difficult.

I am a long‐term resident of Santa Monica, over 50 years, and have watched how our city council and planning committee members have continued to approve numerous building projects. This proposal helps no one except for the developers and those who get donationsfrom the developers.

I am very concerned about the city of Santa Monica and the appalling direction our city is heading. Having lived in Santa Monica since the 60's I sorely miss the quiet seaside charm that originally attracted me.

Please reject the project on the Gelson’s site that is seriously flawed for the following reasons:
 The developer’s bonus density calculations are incorrect under the code for the reasons provided by SMCLC;  The developer should not be permitted to waive our code requirement for 2‐bedroom units for affordable housing – we need such family‐sized housing in Santa Monica and this project would provide only 12 units if the waiver were allowed;
 Our City planning department lacked transparency in its dealings with the public on this highly controversial project by stalling and making excuses to repeated questions as to the status of the application process;  Our City planning staff allowed time to run out on the public’s comment deadline, denying an opportunity for outside substantive review of the relevant development standards to object to this project by residents and involved groups; and
 City planning staff has not met their ethical obligations to the public as set out in the Ethical Planning Principles of the American Planning Association.

I urge the City Planning Director to cure these deficiencies by requiring the developer to revise its allowable density bonus and to comply with its affordable housing obligation before approving this project.

Item 16.C
09/27/22
3 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 2 JoanneD Pittard MS, RN
Santa Monica Resident
See attached pdf file.
cc:

Planning Director at [email protected]
City Manager at [email protected]
City Council at [email protected]

Item 16.C
09/27/22
4 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: STOP repression of resident input re Gelson project From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 3:27 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; David Martin <[email protected]>
Subject: STOP repression of resident input re Gelson project

EXTERNAL
To the governing bodies in Santa Monica
It is abhorrent to me to hear about the repressive practices of our planning director and it's department to exclude the rightful input from the residents of Santa Monica.

It is in line with the same practices of the developer who disregarded the many thoughtful and constructive ideas of the residents who attended the public meeting with them....an unusually high attendance and interest of residents.

It also represents very serious, known violations of existing laws of the SM City Planning Director ....(.which don't need repetition as they have been already presented to you many times over.)
This cannot be tolerated and there should be appropriate consequences for the planning director. I hope the Santa Monica City Council will step up and take action in their duty to represent the residents of Santa Monica. ** This project needs to be dramatically reduced !!
** Necessary and valued neighborhood small stores need to be saved ( increase available space for stores in the project.......make the rent for them affordable ). ** Unbelievable traffic impact/mitigation plans for this already busy intersection need to be in place.
** WATER use impact should not be allowed to be simply bought by the developer and to be applied somewhere else. WE ARE IN A SEVERE DROUGHT ! IT WILL TURN INTO ASTRONOMICAL PRICE INCREASES FOR THE EVERY DAY RESIDENTS. just from this project.

I appreciate your attention ,
Thank you,
Item 16.C
09/27/22
5 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 2 O. D.

Item 16.C
09/27/22
6 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Reject the density bonus of Gelson Project at Lincoln and Ocean Park Blvds.

From: Ellen Hannan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 4:13 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Reject the density bonus of Gelson Project at Lincoln and Ocean Park Blvds.

EXTERNAL
No one is above the law. Including this site which is double counting the density bonus. Fairness in housing applies to all landowners whether a single family lot or a huge development. This site should include housing for families since it is within walking distance to local schools. Older students of high school age need to have bedrooms. We are in short supply of 2 and 3 bedroom affordable housing in the City.

Deny this project as it is proposed.

Ellen Hannan
1218 9th St #6
Santa Moncia
09/22/2022
Item 16.C
09/27/22
7 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Gelson's/Lincoln Center Project
From: Thunder Levin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 11:16 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Gelson's/Lincoln Center Project

EXTERNAL
The “Lincoln Center Project” on the site of the current Gelson’s supermarket must be drastically downsized from its current plan. As now proposed it is drastically out of scale with the neighborhood, will increase traffic to utterly unmanageable proportions, use more water than is available, strain city services to breaking, fails to meet net‐zero energy requirements, provides far too small a percentage of affordable housing, is ugly and overwhelming, and trades the current over‐priced supermarket for one that will be too small to meet the neighborhood’s needs, at a time when the Vons at Lincoln & Broadway will also be closed for redevelopment.

You work for the residents of Santa Monica, NOT the developers and not the insane people in the state legislature. You must do your job FOR SANTA MONICANS! That means either entirely blocking, or at least radically downsizing, this development. To be clear, it doesn’t matter if you have to violate state law to do so. The state mandate of 9000 new homes has never been reasonable or practical and you are REQUIRED to fight it and if that fight fails, to simply ignore it and use local control over local issues.

NOW GO DO YOUR JOBS!

(And while you’re at it, PLEASE, for the love of god, get the high speed e‐bikes off the beach bike path already! Someone’s going to get killed!)
Respectfully, and with best regards,

Thunder Levin

Thunder Levin
2407 Fourth St. #7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310‐392‐8331
310‐999‐1831 cell
[email protected]

Item 16.C
09/27/22
8 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 5 Virus-free.www.avast.com
Item 16.C
09/27/22
9 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: REJECT GELSON'S SITE PROJECT
From: Rosa Hogle <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 2:52 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>
Cc: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: REJECT GELSON'S SITE PROJECT

EXTERNAL
Mr. David White, City Manager:

Our family has lived at 1217 Pearl Street since 1956. We are totally opposed to the massive Gelson's development on Lincoln and Ocean Park Blvd.

It is appalling that the Planning Department constantly overrides the wishes of the vast majority of Santa Monica Residents on these massive developments.

Why can't the Council and City Manager control the Planning Department? There should be a total reorganization (firing) of the Planning Director and key Subordinates for consistently disregarding the wishes of Santa Monica citizens.

Drastically downsize or complete rejection of this project.

William and Rosa Hogle
1217 Pearl St.

Santa Monica, Ca.

Item 16.C
09/27/22
10 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Request to reject the project on the Gelson’s site! From: Inge Mueller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:15 AM
To: David Martin <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Request to reject the project on the Gelson’s site!

EXTERNAL
Dear Planning Director Martin,
The City of Santa Monica and its surrounding neighborhoods deserve better than this monstrosity, a testament to corporate greed rather than true solutions to our housing crisis.

Please reject the project on the Gelson’s site for the following reasons:

1. The developer’s bonus density calculations are incorrect under the code for the reasons provided by SMCLC;

2. The developer should not be permitted to waive our code requirement for 2-bedroom units for affordable housing – we need such family-sized housing in Santa Monica and this project would provide only 12 units if the waiver were allowed;

3. Our City planning department lacked transparency in its dealings with the public on this highly controversial project by stalling and making excuses to repeated questions as to the status of the application process;

4. Our City planning staff allowed time to run out on the public’s comment deadline, denying an opportunity for outside substantive review of the relevant development standards to object to this project by residents and involved groups; and

5. City planning staff have not met their ethical obligations to the public as set out in the Ethical Planning Principles of the American Planning Association.

Thank you!
Inge Mueller
Item 16.C
09/27/22
11 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 8 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Lincoln Project Opposition
From: Jake Glick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 3:18 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Lincoln Project Opposition

EXTERNAL
Hello,
After reflecting on my e‐mail over the weekend, I would like to sincerely apologize for my tone, assumptions and unwarranted attacks.

After reading a recent article about the Lincoln Project, I let passion get the best of me. I am not well versed enough in politics, development or anything else pertaining to the city; therefore, my accusations of corruption and greed were uncalled for ‐ especially from a City Council Board that I voted for.

Please accept my lapse of judgement ‐ I know you probably get quite a few of these attack's because it's easier to be mean over the internet. This is a lesson learned for me ‐ I was raised better than to hurl remarks that are indefensible.

I still oppose the Lincoln Project on the grounds of congestion and losing the aesthetics of the Sunset Park neighborhood; but I voted for the people who also feel this way ‐ and it's your job to do what's in the best interest of the residents, so I will let you do that while also letting you know that I "firmly disagree with the project as proposed." Again ‐ I apologize for the completely unnecessary letter, all I needed to do was state my position without the editorial.

Sincerely,
Jake Glick
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:38 PM Jake Glick <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,
This letter is to voice my opposition to the "Lincoln Project".

I was born and raised in Sunset Park ‐ and will never* leave. I grew up on 11th and Ashland, I bought my first condo on 11th and Ocean Park (over looking the Gelsons ‐ thankfully I sold in 2019!). I bought my first house on Navy Street. I am Sunset Park, through and through.

Developing this project would devastate the local neighborhood. I've seen it first hand; I stopped going to "mid‐city" as the tall,drab apartments made for dark, windy streets and of course there's no parking (because "no one needs to Item 16.C
09/27/22
12 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 9 drive"). The congestion, lack of natural light and density have cut me off from some of my beloved places (Bay Cities, in particular).

Starting the trend of building a monstrosity in Sunset Park will only proliferate the traffic, lack of parking and humans living on top of one another, leading to the anger, road rage and NIMBY‐ism we see today.

Be reasonable, stop with the greed, stop with the self‐idolization that people crave to put their "stamp" on something. You serve the city, you serve the residents ‐ not developer interests, not a vocal minority. *If a project of this magnitude goes through, I will absolutely move‐on from the place I've lovingly called home ‐ because it will no longer be a community that would be accessible (traffic), safe or represent the incredible culture i grew up in.

I know change is inevitable, and I am all for change. I am all for accomodation and inclusivity, but this goes far beyond that. This is a project to make "everyone" money except the longtime residents who have to endure the consequences. At the end of the day, accommodating 53 lucky low income families is a joke out of 500+ units ‐ truly reflect on whether you think this will actually help make Santa Monica more accessible. A perfect example of low income housing is right down the street on Ashland and Lincoln (no, not the new structure with a paltry 7 low income units), the place next to McDonald's is ENTIRELY for low‐income. The scale fits the neighborhood so well people don't even notice it.

Please, I urge you to stop thinking about the greed for fame, fight the urge of corruption, and do what's right for the city.

Sincerely,
Jake Glick
(proud alumni of Mount Olive Preschool, Will Rogers Elementary, John Adams Middle School and SAMOHI Class of 2002)
Item 16.C
09/27/22
13 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 10 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Gelson's Project
From: Marilyn Elias <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 12:50 PM
To: David Martin <[email protected]>
Cc: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Gelson's Project

EXTERNAL
Dear Mr. Martin:

I write as a long‐time resident of the Sunset Park area of Santa Monica to strongly object to how the Gelson’s site application process has been handled. There were very serious legal and ethical violations during this process that warrant rejection of the project at this time.

Given the desperate need for family housing in our city, the developer should not be allowed an exemption of the code requirement for 2‐bedroom units for affordable housing. Providing just 12 family‐sized units for such a massive project is appalling. This waiver should not be given.

Also, I am deeply concerned about our Planning Department’s failure to be open and accessible to the public during the consideration process. The Department works for us— this is still a democracy— yet failed to respond to repeated questions from the public about the status of the application process, delaying and making excuses for the failure to be forthcoming. This is not a dictatorship. There was zero transparency here. The City Planning staff meanwhile kept the clock running until time ran out on the comment deadline afforded to the public. This shut out the possibility of an independent review of development standards, along with potential objections to this massive project by residents of our city and knowledgeable planning groups. We are not stupid; we realize when we’ve been coopted in ways that don’t speak well for the integrity of the people who are supposed to be transparent with us.

Finally, I have fact‐based reasons to conclude that the developer’s bonus density calculations are not correct under code.

For all of the above reasons, I strongly urge you to address these serious problems by requiring the developer to redo the math on its allowable density bonus and also to comply with our well‐founded affordable housing requirement before approving the project.

Sincerely,
Marilyn Elias
Item 16.C
09/27/22
14 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Gelson project NO!!!!!!!!!
From: cathykarolc <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:48 AM
To: David Martin <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>
Subject: Gelson project NO!!!!!!!!!

EXTERNAL
The Planning Department did not inform the developer of two issues that SMCLC believes are vital. It did not object to how the project’s density bonus was calculated nor deal with the developer’s improper waiver of substantial family affordable housing under our city codes. also
Meanwhile, the City secretly dropped its objections to the revised Application and retroactively “deemed” it complete. Thereafter, the Planning Department withheld this crucial information from the public for over a month, letting the 60-day comment period run out. this is NO FAIR and terrible
Cathy Karol-Crowther
2700 Nielson Way apt 231
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 16.C
09/27/22
15 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Gelson's site at Lincoln and Ocean Park
From: Alice Mitchell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:29 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David Martin <[email protected]>
Subject: Gelson's site at Lincoln and Ocean Park

EXTERNAL
I am for the construction of affordable housing, but the project does not accommodate family units of 2 bedrooms which would be useful to tSM eachers and city workers and their families. Please revise the plan and downsize the overall scale of the project.

Thank you,
Alice Mitchell
resident
‐‐
Alice Mitchell
[email protected]
Item 16.C
09/27/22
16 of 16 Item 16.C
09/27/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: Written Comment (5392 : Request update on Ocean Park & Lincoln Project)

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 27, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
September 27, 2022