Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, September 27, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

City of Santa Monica
City Council Meeting
AGENDA

SUE HIMMELRICH
MAYOR

LANA NEGRETE KRISTIN MCCOWAN

COUNCILMEMBER MAYOR PRO TEM

GLEAM DAVIS PHIL BROCK

COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER

CHRISTINE PARRA OSCAR DE LA TORRE

COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER

DAVID WHITE

CITY MANAGER

DOUGLAS SLOAN

CITY ATTORNEY

DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN

CITY CLERK

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

City of Santa Monica Generated: 9/27/2022 1:09 PM Page 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Closed Session.

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

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

6. Public Comment on remaining Agenda Items

7. Study Session.

8. Continued Items.

9. Administrative Proceedings.

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

11. Staff Administrative Item.

12. Public Hearings.

13. Reports of Boards and Commissions.

14. Resolutions.

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

16. Councilmember Discussion Items.

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

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

City of Santa Monica Generated: 9/27/2022 1:09 PM Page 3

AGENDAS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

REGULAR MEETING

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1685 MAIN STREET, ROOM 250,
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2022
MEETING BEGINS AT 5:30 PM
WAYS TO PROVIDE REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

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

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

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

1.A. Written Comments

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

CALENDAR ONLY)

3. CLOSED SESSIONS

3.A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1): NMS 1539, LLC et al. v. City of Santa Monica, et al., Central District of California Case No. 2:20-cv-11318-FLA-JPR

3.B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to Litigation pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(2) (2 cases) - Revised Title. 9/23/2022

4. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS
City of Santa Monica Generated: 9/27/2022 1:09 PM Page 4

4.A. Commendations: Santa Monica Little League 16U All-Stars The following is the order of business for items to be heard no earlier than 7:00 p.m.

4.B. City Manager Report - Revised Title. 9/22/2022
Update on:

1. Permanent Parklet / Outdoor Dining transition

2. Proposed by-right development project at Ocean Park and Lincoln Blvd

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

5.A. Approval of Amended and Restated Lease with Pacific Park at 380 Santa Monica Pier
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Make a determination that the actions to execute a new Amended and Restated Lease Agreement and waive Pier Leasing Guideline’s competitive procurement requirement as set forth in recommended actions #2 and #3 are exempt under CEQA guideline 15061(b)(3) and 15302.

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a new Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with EPR Parks, LLC (Tenant) with respect to Pacific Park to extend the term of the lease, provide an additional two 10-year extension options to extend the term up to May 25, 2070, allow alcohol service subject to regulatory approvals, and incorporate additional new business terms as outlined in a Draft Term Sheet negotiated by the parties; and

3. Waive the Pier Leasing Guidelines competitive procurement requirement in granting the extension of lease term.

5.B. Approval of Fiscal Year 2022-23 Appropriation of Revenue and Expenditure Budgets for Donations Made to the We Are Santa Monica Fund to Support the Santa Monica Police Cadet Program
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report to appropriate funds donated to the We Are Santa Monica Fund to expand the Police Cadet Program.

5.C. Approval to Extend the Council Public Input Pilot Until March 2023 City of Santa Monica Generated: 9/27/2022 1:09 PM Page 5 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council extend the pilot program consolidating general public input and public comment on agenda items prior to Closed Session and after the Consent Calendar from December 31, 2022 to March 31, 2023.

5.D. Approval of Second Modification with Insight Public Sector, Inc. for Microsoft Enterprise Agreement
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to agreement #10933 in the amount of $2,400,000 (including 10% contingency) with Insight Public Sector, Inc. for the purchase of Microsoft software licenses, including software license upgrades and license planning services for the Information Services Department. This will result in a 6- year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $4,900,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

5.E. Approval to Accept State Homeland Security grant funds to provide a countywide, emergency management training program serving all Santa Monica staff, all Operational Area cities, County departments, and special districts within the County of Los Angeles for the reporting period 2022 through 2025.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to accept federal grant funds allocated by the Department of Homeland Security to the State Homeland Security Grant Program. The State of California awarded the funds to the City of Santa Monica to provide a countywide, emergency management training program serving all Santa Monica staff, all Operational Area cities, County departments, and special districts within the county of Los Angeles. On behalf of the Los Angeles Operational Area, the City will accept two federal grants totaling $565,000 starting in 2022 and concluding at the end of the performance period in 2025.The two State Homeland Security Grants are titled as follows: State Homeland Security Grant fiscal year 2021 through 2023, and State Homeland Security Grant, fiscal year 2022 through 2024.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.

5.F. Adoption of Salary Resolution
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Salary Resolution to establish a title change for an existing job classification and salary rates for various job classifications described herein.

5.G. Approval of a Purchase Order for the use Amazon Web Services (AWS) - New Item Received 9/22/2022
City of Santa Monica Generated: 9/27/2022 1:09 PM Page 6 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City to issue a purchase order with DLT Solutions, a Tech Data Company, for Amazon Web Services (AWS) for the Information Services Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250(c) and is for a total amount not to exceed $1,237,500 (including a 10% contingency of $112,500), over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

5.H. City Council - Regular and Special Joint Meeting - Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM - New Item Received 9/22/2022

6. PUBLIC INPUT ON REMAINING AGENDA ITEMS
. Public Input for 9 or 12-Items will be heard at the time when the Public Hearing is called.

7. STUDY SESSION

7.A. Memorial Park Expansion
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Review and comment on restarting the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project with a reduced initial phase that is still in line with the approved master plan;

2. Provide direction to staff to reengage Santa Monica College (SMC) and Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) in negotiations for potential fiscal and use agreements; and

3. Direct staff to study possible temporary relocation sites for the Public Landscape Division’s operation yard and return with a recommended alternative.

8. CONTINUED ITEMS
No items

9. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

9.A. Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Deny Application to Designate 305 San Vicente as a City Landmark
City of Santa Monica Generated: 9/27/2022 1:09 PM Page 7 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Deny Appeal 20ENT-0247, appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision to deny the designation of the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark; and

2. Deny Designation Application (20ENT-0119) to designate the property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark based on the findings contained in this report.

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

10. ORDINANCES
(Public comment is permitted on ordinances for introduction and first reading. No public discussion is permitted on ordinances for second reading and adoption.)

10.A. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.097 to expand to other locations beyond Main Street and Downtown
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

10.B. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the Military Equipment Use Policy
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

10.C. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Santa Monica Municipal Code and adopting Local Amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Code and adoption of a Resolution that provides findings of local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions as required by the Health and Safety Code
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached resolution that provides findings of local climatic, geological, topographical, and environmental conditions as required to adopt Santa Monica local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code;

2. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance that amends the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) by adding chapter 8.38 entitled, Zero Emission Building Code and amend Santa Monica Municipal Code section

8.08.040 to allow the Building and Fire Life Safety Commission to hear appeals related to the Zero Emission Building Code;

3. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance that adopts local amendments to the 2022 California Green Buildings Standards Code to support increased access to electric vehicle charging; and City of Santa Monica Generated: 9/27/2022 1:09 PM Page 8

4. Direct the City Manager to file the adopted resolution and ordinance amending the Green Building Standards Code with the California Building Standards Commission following the second reading of the ordinance at least 30 days before the effective date of the Codes.

11. STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
No items

12. PUBLIC HEARINGS

12.A. 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.

12.B. 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.

13. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
No items
City of Santa Monica Generated: 9/27/2022 1:09 PM Page 9

14. RESOLUTIONS
No items

15. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OTHER THAN REPORTS OF COMMISSION AND

OFFICERS
No items

16. COUNCILMEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS

16.A. 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

16.B. Recommendation to accept Bruce Malarky's resignation from the Airport Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy.

16.C. 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. - New Item Received 9/22/2022

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

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

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

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

City of Santa Monica Generated: 9/27/2022 1:09 PM Page 10 Santa Monica Blue Bus Lines #2, #3, #5, #9 and the EXPO Line serve City Hall. Parking is available on Main Street, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).

City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 1.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Written Comments
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comment

1.A
Packet Pg. 11
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 10:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Electrification of all new buildings

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
My goal in writing this email is to convince you that passing the electrification of all in new buildings in Santa Monica will be hugely beneficial, not only for the our wonderful city but for everyone who enjoys breathing and living above ground.

Economically it makes much more sense to invest in infrastructure that will not be replaced within the next 10 years. And from health and safety point of view we will be reducing our exposure to the toxic by-products of natural gas and also reducing the grave risks associated with earthquakes and gas explosions that seem to occur on a very regular basis Finally, if we as a small community which is part a larger community are serious about dealing with climate change then we have to stop using all fossil fuels immediately.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the earth's survival is in the balance and that passing electrification reach code is an important step towards ensuring the continued existence of the human species Tim Bowler
Santa Monica resident
Item 1
09/27/22
1 of 5 Item 1
09/27/22

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Written Comment (5394 : Written)
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Michelle Gray
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; David White
Cc: Andy Agle; Setareh Yavari; Danielle Noble; Theresa Marasco; Peter Borresen; Kate Evarts; Dominic Gomez; Josh Hamilton; Noe Mendoza
Subject: Public Comment for 27 Sept CC meeting agenda item 1 Dear City Council,
I'm writing to respond to Mayor Himmelrich's comments at the 13 September 2022 City Council/Housing Authority Board meeting regarding the Housing Commission's failure to provide input on recent housing related city documents.

I and other Housing Commissioners have expressed concern and frustration for at least six months that the Housing Commission has been omitted from the process of reviewing housing related city items. I have personally requested such Staff Administrative Items from Housing Commission Staff Liaison Noe Mendoza on multiple occasions, with no items or even projected items forthcoming.

Shortly after his hiring, I asked Noe Mendoza how the Staff Administrative Item calendar worked—was there a database or spreadsheet that generated or listed items to be addressed at approximately the same time each year? How did he know what to add to each agenda? He told me there was no such list and he relied on notification from other staff of such pending items. Again, none have been produced or announced for any forthcoming agenda.

Why has the Housing Commission, an advisory body tasked with reviewing housing related city documents and providing feedback on them to City Council and the Housing Authority Board, been removed from the process of reviewing and advising on such items? Who is responsible for this decision? And what will the City Council and City Manager do to remedy it?
The Housing Commission stands ready and waiting to provide feedback on city documents in our purview. To our great frustration, we have been prevented from doing so.

I look forward to your prompt investigation and swift remedy of this ongoing concern.

Thank you,
Michelle Gray
Chair,
Santa Monica Housing Commission
[email protected]
Item 1
09/27/22
2 of 5 Item 1
09/27/22

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Written Comment (5394 : Written)
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; David White; Douglas Sloan Subject: 9/27/22 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 1 - Public Input

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:

I am making the public comment as a person of the public and not as the Vice Chair of the Housing Commission.

Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:

My public input today is concerning Mayor Himmelrich's actions that have equated to union busting and her attempts to assassinate my character both during City Council meetings and privately to individuals and nonprofit organizations.

During the City Council meeting on May 10, 2022, Mayor Himmelrich made inflammatory and disparaging remarks that were slanderous in nature about me and the Chair of the Housing Commission, Michelle Gray regarding our positions and actions while on the Housing Commission.

On September 13, 2022, Mayor Himmelrich contacted an employee of Tenants Together, angry that they had written a letter of support for the proposed Client Advisory Board (CAB) that was submitted to the City Council regarding agenda item 7A for the September 13, 2022, City Council meeting. Mayor Himmelrich asked the nonprofit tenant organizer if Housing Commission Chair Michelle Gray and I were “behind” the letter of support for the CAB and then began an angry litany by stating that her husband was “thrown off” of the Housing Commission because she is the Mayor, that I/we bullied Commissioners, that I/we were trying to reduce the number of housing vouchers in Santa Monica, and that we were opposed to 100% affordable housing. None of those statements are true or in any way relevant to the letter of support for the CAB submitted by the Tenants Together organizer for agenda item 7A on September 13, 2022. Clearly, Mayor Himmelrich engaged in an act that is analogous to union busting and spreading false accusations she knew were not true. Mayor Himmelrich essentially tried to silence the voices of some of the most vulnerable community members in the city even though she purports to support low-income households.

I urge the City Attorney to ensure Mayor Himmelrich ceases her ongoing slanderous statements against me and other Housing Commission leadership. A formal cease and desist letter addressed to Mayor Himmelrich is forthcoming to stop disseminating false and defamatory statements about me.

Item 1
09/27/22
3 of 5 Item 1
09/27/22

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Written Comment (5394 : Written)
2 Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 1
09/27/22
4 of 5 Item 1
09/27/22

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Written Comment (5394 : Written)
1 Vernice Hankins
From: oz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: DEMOTE HIMMELRICH FROM MAYOR: Public I out item 1 at 9/27/23 Council mtg

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please demote Sue Himmelrich from the position of Mayor due to her ethical transgressions, bullying of Councilmembers, commissioners and members of the public, and engaging in actions similar to union busting (pertaining to the creation of the RAB/CAB).

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Item 1
09/27/22
5 of 5 Item 1
09/27/22

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Written Comment (5394 : Written)
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Special Agenda Items Subject: Commendations: Santa Monica Little League 16U All-Stars Prepared By: Stephanie Venegas, Council Office & Legislative Affairs Liaison Approved Forwarded to Council

4.A
Packet Pg. 17
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 4.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Special Agenda Items Subject: City Manager Report
Update on:

1. Permanent Parklet / Outdoor Dining transition

2. Proposed by-right development project at Ocean Park and Lincoln Blvd Prepared By: Christopher Smith, Assistant to the City Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comment

4.B
Packet Pg. 18
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Josiah Citrin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Parklet

EXTERNAL
Hi
I am writing to let you know that I think the cost for the parklets fees with the sewer connection fee is very high and puts us small restaurants in a difficult place to come up with the funds to support it. The costs for the parklets should be fair for both the Restaurant owners and the city.

Thank you for listening
Josiah Citrin
Augies on Main
“In Pursuit of Excellence”
Item 4.B
09/27/22
1 of 2 Item 4.B
09/27/22

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Written Comment (5213 : City Manager Report) independenthospitality.org
[email protected]
[email protected]
Via Email 27 September 2022
To the Santa Monica City Council
Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Gelam Davis
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Christine Parra
Councilmember Oscar De La Torre
Re: Item #4 (B) 1. Permanent Parklet / Outdoor Dining transition Dear honorable Members of the City Council
The Independent Hospitality Coalition (IHC) represents over 1,200 members comprised of local food service operators and employees within the Los Angeles area. We were created to provide a voice and representation for our workforce and essential businesses ingrained in the local economy of Los Angeles.

We are writing to provide comment on Item #4 (B) 1 listed for today, September 27th meeting agenda, hearing an update on the Permanent Parklet and Outdoor Dining Transition. We are asking to please consider eliminating or finding reasonable alternatives to the wastewater fees being imposed on restaurants transitioning to a permanent program. We ask that more equitable solutions are investigated before these current $1,359.49 per seat wastewater fees are required of us.

It has become apparent in cities throughout California that Al Fresco programs have become an asset to communities.

They have provided several benefits to our neighborhoods consistent with a more walkable and local ecosystem friendly environment. They put more eyes on the streets increasing public safety for a safer walk home.

The program has been a huge success - not only helping hospitality businesses survive through the worst periods of the pandemic but also helping us recover our losses that have accumulated over the past two years. In addition, it has brought Main Street back to life. We see new businesses open every day and hear about many more to come. As a business owner, I understand the need to collect fees on these parklets. However, asking restaurants to pay $1,359.49 per seat for wastewater fees is extraneous and onerous. For a small restaurant that has 20 seats on an outdoor patio, that's almost $30K in wastewater permit fees alone.

Restaurants do not function with high margins. Our costs continue to rise each day. The price of something as simple as eggs has more than tripled since 2020. Healthcare costs have increased over 40% for us this year. We have struggled to not dramatically increase prices and as a result have taken a hit to our bottom line. If we were required to pay these fees, we would have to choose between operating our outdoor patio or increasing our prices dramatically.

Neither of these options would be a benefit to the neighborhood. We are so proud to be a part of the Santa Monica Main Street community and want to help continue to build Main Street, but these fees are really crushing to our businesses.

Please make decisions that will not force us to close their outdoor patios. We ask to work together with you on this issue to preserve the luster of what Main Street has become.

Sincerely,
Ann Hsing
[email protected]
908.229.0315.

Eddie Navarrette
[email protected]
213.545.2620.

Item 4.B
09/27/22
2 of 2 Item 4.B
09/27/22

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Written Comment (5213 : City Manager Report) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.A
1 of 8
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Approval of Amended and Restated Lease with Pacific Park at 380 Santa Monica Pier
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

3. Waive the Pier Leasing Guidelines competitive procurement requirement in granting the extension of lease term.

Summary
Pacific Park is a two-acre family friendly amusement park located at 380 Santa Monica Pier and is owned by EPR Parks LLC and operated by Premier Parks. When Pacific Park opened in 1996, it was the first full-fledged amusement park to operate on the Pier in over 65 years. Featuring 12 rides including an 85-foot solar powered Ferris Wheel, a collection of midway game booths, and a variety of retail and food outlets, Pacific Park is among the City’s top sales tax producers and one of the City’s largest employers.

Tourism and economic impact studies have shown the Pier and Pacific Park are major contributors to the Santa Monica and regional economy. The updated lease would

5.A
Packet Pg. 21
2 of 8
extend the current agreement through 2050, with two 10-year extension options, ending the lease in 2070 and modifying other terms agreeable to both parties.

The proposed amended and restated lease would significantly enhance the value of Pacific Park’s operation and allow them to get favorable financing to maintain the Park as a top-level attraction. As a result of the enhanced value of the Park, the City’s revenue share would be increased as well.

Discussion
Pacific Park’s initial lease term expires in 2026 with two 10-year options remaining. If both options are exercised, the lease would terminate in 2046. Pacific Park (Tenant) submitted a proposal to the City (Landlord) on August 28, 2020, which sought to modify certain provisions of its existing lease, commit significant and on-going capital investment, and resolve a dispute between the Parties regarding substructure and decking improvements. The Parties commenced good faith negotiations to structure mutually acceptable terms and conditions for Council’s consideration (Attachment A.

Term Sheet). The following summarizes the major key business terms and conditions agreed to in concept by the Parties to be incorporated into a new Amended and Restated Lease, subject to Council approval.

Term: Initial term of the lease to be extended by four years and will expire on May 25, 2030. The Current Lease provides for two ten-year extension options which would terminate in 2050. The new lease would grant Tenant two additional ten-year options to the Current Lease thereby potentially extending the term until May 25, 2070.

Waiver of Rent Reset: The Current Lease provides Landlord the opportunity to reset the rental rate to reflect fair market rent during option periods. Based on a recent evaluation of fair market rent for comparable amusement parks, Landlord has opted to maintain the current rent structure as it has been determined to reflect fair market value. Percentage rent will continue at ten percent (10%) of gross receipts in excess of $11,000,000 per calendar year. Base Rent (the minimum rent due under a lease) and Common Area Maintenance (CAM) Charges will continue to be adjusted annually by increases in the Consumer Price Index. An analysis of competitive amusement park lease rates

5.A
Packet Pg. 22
3 of 8
prepared by the Tenant and scrutinized by the City’s consultant suggests that current lease rates are among the highest in the industry which in turn would suggest that a near term reset of rents would not yield an increase in rent.

Modify definition of Gross Sales: Certain provisions in the Current Lease will be amended to eliminate exclusions from the definition of Tenant’s Gross Receipts. These modifications will result in the increase in the Tenant’s Gross Receipts for the purpose of calculating the amount of Percentage Rent due to the City and represents an effective rent increase.

Elimination of Rent Credit: Tenant is responsible for the costs of certain public safety services described in a Settlement Agreement and Release dated March 27, 2000, however the annual rent credit provided to the Tenant in the current Lease will be eliminated. Elimination of rent credit represents an effective rent increase.

Sale of Alcohol: Sale of alcoholic beverages as part of the Tenant’s food operations will be permitted, subject to regulatory approvals and conditions that may be required as part of the State and local alcohol permit approval process. Lease will acknowledge that operation of a restaurant on the Premises is a permitted use.

Substructure and Decking: To resolve the ongoing dispute between Landlord and Tenant with respect to responsibility for maintenance, repair and replacement of the improvements underlying the Pier and necessity of these improvements for supporting Tenant’s rides and maintenance of decking within the premises, Tenant will be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all improvements which support Tenant’s rides and decking within its premises, except in the event of a Pier Casualty (damage or destruction of the Pier caused by a casualty event such as fire which renders the Pier wholly or partially unsound). Landlord will continue to be responsible for all maintenance, repair and replacement of all other improvements supporting the Pier, subject to CIP budget appropriation.

5.A
Packet Pg. 23
4 of 8
Future Capital Investment: Tenant will spend a minimum of $10 million in capital improvements/capital repairs during the five-year period commencing in the calendar year after Tenant’s annual revenue returns to pre-pandemic levels which based on revenue trends could occur within this or the following calendar year. Thereafter, Tenant will commit to capital improvements/repairs of a minimum of $5 million during each succeeding five-year periods including the extension periods. The $5 million requirement will be adjusted by increases in the Construction Cost Index. Each year the Tenant would be required to provide Landlord with a report documenting the expenditures on capital improvements and capital repairs performed during the previous year.

The Park’s total capital improvement commitment would be a minimum of $55 million in today’s dollars, comprised of $14 million for long term maintenance of the decking and substructure, and a minimum of $40 million on future capital improvements. Actual capital requirements will be indexed to keep up with construction costs.

Other proposed terms: Additional terms include: (a) Tenant’s waiver of a $1.5 million reimbursement claim for past substructure and decking work; (b) elimination of a requirement on the City to maintain $8 million cash on hand reserve in the event of a Casualty; (c) upon a future sale of the lease, the City would receive a Transfer Fee of

0.25% of net sale proceeds (d) addition of a Refinance Liquidity Test (120% debt coverage ratio); and (e) addition of financial requirements prior to end of lease regarding improvements. There is also an agreement to clean up inconsistent language in the existing lease, including the provisions governing virtual reality games and devices.

Deviation from Pier Leasing Guidelines
Under the Council-approved Pier Leasing Guidelines (Appendix B. Guidelines), the Pier Corporation is delegated the authority to recommend to the City Manager the execution of leases which conform to said Guidelines. Both Pier Corporation recommendation and Council approval of Pier leases are required when a proposed lease diverges from the Guidelines or for lease terms that are more than 25 years.

5.A
Packet Pg. 24
5 of 8
The Guidelines provide the framework for fair and consistent leasing and licensing of City-owned property on the Santa Monica Pier. The Guidelines provide parameters and general policy on mix of uses, standards and terms, and tenant recruitment and selection. When substantive terms or process deviate from the Guidelines, Council has the authority to grant exceptions.

The proposal deviates from the Guideline’s requirement for a competitive public process as lease renewals or extensions are not automatically offered to tenants.

Section 6. subsection I. and subsection II. state:

I. “The Santa Monica Pier is public property; therefore all leases and licenses will be subject to an open and competitive public process.” and
II. “Lease renewals will not be automatically offered to tenants. As vacancies arise either by lease expiration or earlier termination, recruitment for occupancy will be conducted in accordance with the Leasing Guidelines” The Guidelines do support extended lease terms when correlated to a substantial level of capital investment, use and size, and allowing longer lease terms for leases with larger footprints when furthering the Pier’s goals and objectives outlined in the Guidelines.

Section 7.2. regarding Term states:
“Rental lease terms for commercial space on the Pier shall be negotiated based on the level of capital investment, use, size of the space (leases for larger footprints are normally for longer terms) and complementary character of the operation with the Pier Leasing Goals and Objectives. These factors also will be balanced against the City’s policy of ensuring that public sites periodically do become available for a public competitive process.” Staff concluded that waiving the competitive procurement process by extending the lease would not have a negative fiscal impact on the City as the proposed lease

5.A
Packet Pg. 25
6 of 8
modifications would provide the City with significantly more benefit than might have resulted from a full RFP process seeking competing amusement park proposals.

Furthermore, the Tenant conveyed that if the City were to have pursued a competitive process in considering the extended term, they would have withdrawn their request and instead would continue to operate under the remaining term granted in the current lease.

Financial Analysis
Staff engaged economic and real estate consultant Allan D Kotin & Associates (ADK&A) to provide economic and financial analysis of the proposed amended and restated lease. Work performed by ADK&A included an analysis and valuation of the addition of alcohol sales into future concession operations, additional lease extension options, elimination of exclusions to gross sales, amusement park fair market rent comparisons, past and estimated future costs of maintaining, repairing, and replacing deck boards and substructure, as well as other economic items discussed during negotiations. In performance of this evaluation ADK&A was given access to proprietary financial documents and financial projections. Increase in rent to the City under the proposed lease versus the current lease is illustrated in Exhibit D.

ADK&A found that the proposal presented in the Term Sheet is economically feasible, mutually beneficial to the Tenant and City, and conveys roughly equal value to the parties. The proposed amended and restated lease requires substantial and continuing capital investment in the Pier and leasehold by the Tenant, provide an exceptional return to the City and enable the Tenant to maintain its competitive position with respect to other amusement parks and attractions. Furthermore, it ensures performance of key obligations by future leasehold owners in inflated dollars by contractually obligating indexed investment and maintenance obligations.

Commission Action
At the Pier Corporation board meeting on May 16, 2022, the Board supported the proposed amendments and approved forwarding to Council a recommendation for approval.

5.A
Packet Pg. 26
7 of 8
Environmental Analysis
CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. A project is not subject to CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The proposed extension of the lease for Pacific Park would not result in a physical environmental effect on the environment.

In addition, Section 15302 exempts Class 1 projects from CEQA, which include the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures [or] facilities, including streets, sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities. The project consists of the extension of the Pacific Park lease. This lease extension would allow for continued operation of Pacific Park and would not necessitate the construction of new buildings or facilities that would result in a physical impact. Therefore, the project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
12/14/2010 Assignment of Santa Monica Amusements LLC Lease Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended actions for FY 2022/23. However, it is anticipated that the proposed modifications to the lease terms will result in an increase in lease revenues in future years. Staff will adjust revenue budgets accordingly as part of the FY2023-25 biennial budget process. Revenues will be deposited into account number 53700001.409840.

5.A
Packet Pg. 27
8 of 8
Prepared By: Elana Buegoff, Pier Administrator
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Term Sheet
B. Pier Leasing Guidelines
C. 12/14/2010 Staff Report
D. Rent Projection

5.A
Packet Pg. 28
11055804.6
TERM SHEET BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA (“LANDLORD”) AND EPR PARKS, LLC (“TENANT”) WITH RESPECT TO PACIFIC PARK Set forth below are the principal business terms for the amendment and restatement of that certain Amended and Restated Lease Agreement between Landlord and Tenant dated as of January 1, 2000 (the “Current Lease”). The parties contemplate that a new lease will be signed based on the Current Lease, as amended by the terms set forth herein and additional minor modifications as appropriate to eliminate any inconsistencies and conflicting provisions in the Current Lease.

1. PREMISES: Tenant will continue to lease the 70,000 square foot area of the Newcomb Pier known as Pacific Park. Tenant also occupies a small area adjacent to the Premises pursuant to a License Agreement, renewed by mutual agreement on an annual basis, which is not considered as part of the Premises.

2. TERM/GRANT OF EXTENSION OPTIONS: The term of the Current Lease will be extended by four (4) years and will expire on May 25, 2030. The Current Lease provides for two (2) ten (10) year extension options. Landlord will grant Tenant two (2) additional ten (10) year options to extend the term of the Current Lease, potentially extending the term until May 25, 2070

3. RENT:

3.1. Base Rent: Annual Base Rent is currently Five Hundred and One Thousand, Two Hundred Ten Dollars ($501,210), and Tenant’s Annual Share of Operating Expenses (“CAM Charges”) is One Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand, Four Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($178,445), payable in equal monthly installments. Base Rent and CAM Charges will continue to be adjusted annually by increases in the Consumer Price Index (though not less than two percent (2%) and not more than five (5%) per year).

3.2. Percentage Rent: Percentage Rent shall continue in the amount of ten percent (10%) of gross receipts in excess of $11,000,000 per calendar year.

Certain provisions in the Current Lease will be amended to eliminate exclusions from the definition of Tenant’s Gross Receipts. These modifications will increase the amount of Tenant’s Gross Receipts for the purpose of calculating the amount of Percentage Rent due Landlord.

3.3. Base Rent Credit: The provision granting Tenant a credit for the cost of certain police services described in the Settlement Agreement and Release, between Landlord and Tenant, dated as of March 27, 2000, will be eliminated.

3.4. Rent During Option Terms: The fair market rent adjustments at the commencement of each option term will be eliminated to facilitate long-term financing opportunities for Tenant.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Term Sheet (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 11055804.6 -2-

4. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF PIER AND PREMISES:

4.1. Pier Common Area: The areas comprising the Pier Common Area will be clarified, specifically to exclude the Pier Bridge. Landlord will continue to be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Pier Common Area, subject to CIP budget appropriation. Prior to execution of the New Lease, Tenant will conduct an inspection of the Pier Common Area. Absent the identification of any issues which Landlord declines to address, Tenant will accept the Pier Common Area in “As-Is” condition as of the date of execution of the New Lease.

4.2. Pier Substructure: The Current Lease will be amended to resolve the ongoing dispute between Landlord and Tenant with respect to responsibility for maintenance, repair and replacement of the improvements (i.e., pilings and caps) underlying the Pier and supporting Tenant’s rides. The provisions in the Current Lease allocating responsibility for maintenance, repair and replacement of the Pier Substructure to Landlord will be eliminated, except as noted below in the event of a Pier Casualty. Tenant will be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all improvements which support Tenant’s rides, except as noted below in the event of a Pier Casualty. Landlord will be responsible for all maintenance, repair and replacement of all other improvements supporting the Pier, subject to CIP budget appropriation. An exhibit identifying the physical components of each party’s substructure responsibilities will be attached to the New Lease.

4.3. Pier Decking: The Current Lease will be amended to resolve the ongoing dispute between Landlord and Tenant with respect to responsibility for maintenance, repair and replacement of Pier decking located inside Pacific Park.

Provisions in the Current Lease allocating responsibility for maintenance, repair and replacement inside Pacific Park will be eliminated, except as noted below in the event of a Pier Casualty. Tenant will be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all Pier Decking located on the Premises, except as noted below in the event of a Pier Casualty. Landlord will be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all other decking located on the Pier. If a party initiates replacement of decking boards which would naturally extend beyond its area of responsibility, it will extend repair so that the full length of a board is replaced.

4.4. Pier Casualty: In the event of a casualty (e.g. fire, earthquake) Landlord will continue to be required to repair all components of the Pier, including all decking and substructure, subject to the availability of insurance proceeds and CIP budget allocation. The Current Lease requires the Landlord to spend up to Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000) in excess of available insurance proceeds in the event of a Pier casualty. This requirement will be eliminated.

4.5. Waivers: The parties will waive all claims against each other with respect to liabilities that have accrued for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Pier Substructure and decking, with neither party admitting responsibility for

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Term Sheet (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 11055804.6 -3-
prior repairs. Tenant’s waiver to include claims for all amounts spent to date on the Pier Substructure and decking. The parties will waive the right to consequential damages (e.g. lost profits) against the other party, the scope of which will be negotiated in the New Lease.

5. FUTURE IMPROVEMENT TO PREMISES:

5.1. Capital Improvement and Capital Repairs: Tenant will spend at least Ten Million dollars ($10,000,000) in capital improvements/capital repairs during the five (5) year period commencing in the calendar year after Tenant’s annual revenue returns to pre-pandemic levels (i.e. greater than $40,000,000).

Thereafter, Tenant will commit to capital improvements/repairs of at least Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) during each succeeding five (5)year period, adjusted for periods Pacific Park is closed, for events of “force majeure” e.g. casualty, prohibited access, governmentally ordered closure and pandemic. The Five Million dollar requirement will be adjusted every five (5) by increases in the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Report, (though not less than two percent (2%) and not more than five (5%) per year). The minimum commitments will not be a cap on Tenant’s obligations if the cost to fulfill its maintenance, repair and replacement obligations exceeds such amounts. No later than ninety (90) days after the end of each calendar year, Tenant shall deliver to Landlord a report of capital improvements/capital repairs performed during the previous calendar year.

6. PERMITTED USE:

6.1. Food Service: Landlord will acknowledge that operation of a restaurant on the Premises is a permitted use.

6.2. Alcoholic Beverages: The New Lease will clarify that the service of alcoholic beverages will be permitted, subject to regulatory approvals. Upon Landlord’s approval of this Term Sheet, Landlord, will cooperate with Tenant’s effort to secure regulatory approvals, including the immediate signing of Tenant’s CUP application.

6.3. Virtual Reality Rides: The New Lease will clarify that Landlord will be permitted to operate and allow the operation of virtual reality rides in the Pier Commercial Area, provided that Tenant is afforded the right of first opportunity to operate such rides, per the provisions of the Current Lease.

7. SALE/TRANSFER FEE: Tenant will pay Landlord a sum equal to one quarter of one percent (0.25%) of the Net Sales Proceeds, to be defined in the Amended Lease, upon the future sale of Tenant’s entire interest in the New Lease.

8. DEBT SERVICE COVENANT: Tenant will covenant that principal amount of any new leasehold mortgage loan may not exceed the higher of: (A) the outstanding balance on an existing loan which it replaces; or (B) a loan with scheduled annual payments of principal and interest such that the debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) at the time of incurrence does not exceed 120%. DSCR is calculated by dividing the Adjusted Income for the 12 calendar month period preceding incurrence (or, if lower, the

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Term Sheet (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 11055804.6 -4-
Adjusted Income for the 12 calendar month period before that) by the scheduled annual payments of principal and interest under the new debt. For the purposes hereof, "Adjusted Income" means Net Income + Depreciation/Amortization + all other non-cash and discretionary items + Interest Expense.

9. OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE TERM: Per the Current Lease, Tenant will continue to be obligated to remove all rides and other improvements from the Premises at the end of the term, provided, however that Landlord will be afforded the right to purchase said rides and improvements at the then current fair market value pursuant to an agreed upon appraisal process, to be completed no later than six (6) years before the end of the term. If City declines to exercise its right to purchase the rides and other improvements, Tenant will post a bond or other reasonably acceptable security to guarantee its removal obligations.

10. CLEAN-UP PROVISIONS: The parties recognize that certain provisions in the Current Lease must be updated and/or revised to remove ambiguities and conflicts.

Such provisions include audit rights, dispute resolution procedures, including a meet and confer process, and other conflicts in agreed upon terms for the New Lease.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Term Sheet (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) Approved by the SMPC: May 15, 2017
Approved by City Council: June 13, 2017

SANTA MONICA PIER LEASING GUIDELINES
These Santa Monica Pier Leasing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) provide the framework for fair and consistent leasing and licensing of City‐owned property on the Santa Monica Pier. The Guidelines provide parameters and general policy on mix of uses, standards and terms, and tenant recruitment and selection. They reflect the general intent and goals of the City of Santa Monica (“City”) at the time they were approved and do not convey any right upon anyone, or impose any obligation on the City. The City may from time‐to‐time change these Guidelines or depart from these Guidelines without liability to anyone.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background
The Santa Monica Pier began in 1909 with the construction of the Municipal Pier – the straight portion that begins at the base of the bridge from Ocean Avenue and continues for more than 1,500 feet over the beach and Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Pier’s ability to attract large crowds impressed Charles Looff, an amusement park pioneer who had built Coney Island’s first carousel in New York. In 1916, after negotiations with the City of Santa Monica, Looff constructed his “Pleasure Pier” alongside the Municipal Pier (now known as the Newcomb Pier). The Pleasure Pier featured the landmark Looff Hippodrome building, which now is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and houses an operating vintage wooden merry‐go‐round.

Today, the Santa Monica Pier (“Pier”) is known as one of the region’s premier recreational and entertainment destinations, attracting over six million visitors annually.

The Pier offers spectacular ocean vistas, year round events and attractions, and is home to a changing collection of restaurants, shops, activities and experiences.

1.2. Unique Character of Pier and Pier Environment
The Santa Monica Pier has been an icon for both the local community and Southern California for over a century. Over this time it has provided a broad variety of entertainment and experiences that directly relate to its beach and ocean setting. These activities and services are predominately specific to the Pier’s on‐going “microculture”, history and surrounding community rather than a replication of things at other piers and places. The maintenance of the Pier’s own “personality” is a core value of the Santa Monica community and central to the recruitment and selection of tenants and licensees.

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 2 | P a g e

2. LEASING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Pier is a valuable historic resource of the City to be developed, used and preserved as a public resource for the enjoyment by the general public. The commercial leasing and licensing program on the Pier is to be managed for the benefit of the general public and in a manner consistent with the following goals and objectives:

I. Promote and maintain the compatible uses of City‐owned property available for lease and license located on the Pier in a manner supporting an attractive, safe and accessible environment for visitors and the residential community; II. Provide for a diversity of business, entertainment, event, educational, and cultural activities as well as active and passive recreational opportunities on the Pier; III. Promote quality and value of goods, food and services provided by the commercial operators on the Pier;
IV. Establish pricing of leasehold and license occupancies that reflects fair market value to help support the fiscal self‐sufficiency of the Pier; V. Assure access to and use of City‐owned properties by the general public through a leasing and licensing program that promotes the orderly and equitable management of tenancies and licenses;
VI. Preserve and promote the unique, eclectic and community recreational character of the Pier;
VII. Preserve and build on the historic elements and character of the Pier while ensuring its relevance and vitality to current and future generations; VIII. Achieve fiscal, social and environmental sustainability; IX. Enhance access and encourage both local and distant visitors to visit and enjoy the Pier;
X. Harmonize with the surrounding beach and downtown community; XI. Take an incremental but continuous approach to change to advance commercial, cultural and civic opportunities on the pier; and XII. Seek a mix of uses and tenants that will contribute to the animation of the Pier.

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 3 | P a g e

3. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
Leasing and licensing on the Pier is the responsibility of the City of Santa Monica through its Office of Pier Management (“OPM”) in coordination with the City’s Economic Development Division. OPM also oversees Pier maintenance and operations. Pier events, filming and marketing are managed by the Non‐Profit Santa Monica Pier Corporation (“SMPC”) in accordance with Event and Marketing Guidelines developed by the SMPC and subject to Council approval.

4. VISION FOR THE PIER AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

4.1. Vision Statement
A Santa Monica Pier that provides an historic platform and a legacy of colorful visitor experiences to showcase contemporary events; a community asset that attracts, welcomes and entertains local, regional, national and international visitors of all incomes, abilities and interests; a landmark that offers an enticing and changing array of site‐appropriate active and passive experiences and attractions.

4.2. Pier Guiding Principles
I. The Pier will be a signature attraction of the City of Santa Monica, known and recognized world‐wide and enjoying a broad base of local community support.

II. The Pier will be an easily accessible and visually prominent destination within the City.

III. The Pier will provide enticing year‐round experiences and attractionsfor visitors.

IV. The Pier will attract and engage visitors of all ages and incomes.

V. The historic fabric and character, as well as the environmental sustainability and structural integrity of the Pier will be documented, celebrated, maintained and improved.

VI. Pier programming will include both traditional and cutting edge entertainment, cultural, athletic and educational experiences.

VII. Promotions, sponsorships and private and public revenue‐producing events, will largely off‐set the cost of popular and free public programming.

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 4 | P a g e

5. SUB AREAS AND USES

5.1. Areas
The Pier is approximately 9 acres in size and consists of two adjoining piers:

I. Municipal Pier. The Municipal Pier is the primary walkway of the Pier. It is approximately 2.5 acres in size and 1,500 feet in length. This public strolling corridor provides the main access to restaurants, shops, amusement (e.g. carousel, Pacific Park) and recreation (fishing, walking, viewing) areas, vending carts and performers.

II. Newcomb Pier. Located south of and adjacent to the Municipal Pier, the Newcomb Pier (also known as the Pleasure Pier) is approximately 6.6 acres, of which 2.2 acres is currently used for public parking and special event space.

Most merchants, facilities, and events are on the Newcomb Pier while vending carts, kiosks and fishing activities are primarily on the Municipal Pier.

5.2. Commercial and Public Areas
The Pier presently has approximately 130,000 square feet of leasable commercial space comprised of buildings, kiosks, carts and deck area. The current Pier tenant mix is approximately 70 percent amusement, 25 percent dining, four percent educational and one percent retail.

Public facilities and service areas on the Pier include the Carousel building which houses City and SMPC offices; a Harbor Guards station; a Police Sub‐Station; a Pier Maintenance workshop; and a second floor public observation deck. In addition there are central and west end public restroom facilities, a central trash & recycling shed, and a 270 space public parking lot.

The “Santa Monica Pier Development Program” approved by Council on February 9, 1988, supported a development program that consisted of approximately 150,000 square feet of commercial area. A new planning effort under development by the City with the assistance of the SMPC, will explore access enhancements, potential expansion of existing activities, and new commercial and civic opportunities. This enhancement effort, and future efforts, may alter the overall mix of activities and uses on the Pier over time to reflect the needs of the Pier and public and changing market conditions.

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 5 | P a g e

6. GENERAL LEASING STANDARDS
Leases and licenses shall be consistent with the Pier Leasing Goals and Objectives.

I. The Santa Monica Pier is public property; therefore all leases and licenses will be subject to an open and competitive public process.

II. Lease renewals will not be automatically offered to tenants. As vacancies arise either by lease expiration or earlier termination, recruitment for occupancy will be conducted in accordance with the Leasing Guidelines.

III. Preferred Uses include, but are not limited to, a range of entertainment and commercial products and services that will appeal to and serve both the residential community and area visitors. The City may change uses as leases expire in order to attract a tenant mix consistent with the Guideline’s goals and objectives.

IV. In order to promote merchant diversity on the Pier the award of multiple leaseholds and/or licenses to an individual tenant, licensee or operator is discouraged but may be allowed subject to conditions provided under Section

7.5. V. All prospective tenants must provide evidence of economic viability and appropriateness to the Pier of their proposed uses and business plan, as well as their capacity and ability to develop and maintain their operation.

VI. Tenants and licensees will be expected to provide quality, visitor‐ supporting services or activities throughout the term of their lease or license, including sustained high levels of maintenance and cleanliness. Leases and Licenses will contain performance standards to ensure on‐going quality and service. Failure to maintain performance standards will be considered a material breech and subject the lease or license to termination.

VII. Tenants and licensees are expected to be active members of the Pier community, participating in its operational life and working together with the City and other tenants to enhance the Pier visitor experience.

VIII. Assignment or subletting of leases is prohibited without the written consent of the Landlord. Landlord’s consent will be subject to express standards and conditions set forth in the lease. Assignment or subletting of licenses is prohibited without exception.

IX. Operation and improvements to lease and license areas are subject to the City’s standard regulatory review and approval process.

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 6 | P a g e

7. MINIMUM/BASIC LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

7.1. Diversity & Permitted Uses
The City will seek operators who offer creative, imaginative and unique merchandise, food options and activities that are thematically compatible with the Pier yet not overly duplicative of the products and services already offered on the Pier.

In order to maintain an appropriate tenant mix consisting of distinct and diverse merchandise, food and servicesthe City will endeavor to limit the number of merchants who carry the same or similar types of offerings. A ‘Permitted Use’ clause shall be included in every lease and license to describe the type of business that will be operated within the leased premises or license area. The Permitted Use description should clearly describe the type of business the tenant or licensee intends to operate and the merchandise, food or service the tenant intends to offer for sale.

The purpose of the Permitted Use clause is to regulate the duplication of merchandise or services; however, it does not grant any tenant or licensee an exclusive right to sell any item or service. Exclusivity rights shall not be granted to any merchant on the Pier.

7.2. Term
Rental lease terms for commercial space on the Pier shall be negotiated based on the level of capital investment, use, size of the space (leases for larger footprints are normally for longer terms) and complementary character of the operation with the Pier Leasing Goals and Objectives. These factors also will be balanced against the City’s policy of ensuring that public sites periodically do become available for a public competitive process.

To maintain the vitality of the Pier the City needs to insure its ability to address the mix of uses and activities on the Pier over time. Therefore, it needs to have a variety of lease and license timeframes and not have the majority of licenses or leases with very long terms or the majority of leases ending simultaneously‐‐ thus limiting the City’s ability to deal with evolutionary changes in Pier visitor needs.

7.2.1. Recommended Terms for Leases and Licenses
I. Portable Vending Carts
The recommended term for vending cart licenses is from 6 months to 1 year.

These licenses should be subject regularly to a public process to accommodate uses that meet contemporary Pier needs and to allow frequent opportunitiesfor businesses interested in operating on the Pier.

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 7 | P a g e
II. Fixed Location Kiosks
The recommended term for fixed location kiosk licenses and concessions is from 3 years to 5 years.

III. Deck Space Rental
The recommended term for the commercial license of deck space is from 1 day to 2 years, depending upon use and circumstances.

IV. Viewers and Transmitters
The recommended term for license and concession of cameras, antennas, and coin‐operated telescopes and binoculars range is from 1 to 5 years depending on use and circumstances.

V. Retail Shops, Restaurants, Amusements and Aquarium
The recommended terms of leases for retail shops, restaurant, attractions and the aquarium range from 5 years to 25 years ‐‐ inclusive of any option periods.

Generally, terms of five years will be granted if there is no substantial new capital investment in structures, structural improvements or equipment. If a tenant is required to make substantial new capital investment in structures, structural improvements or equipment then terms of ten years to twenty‐five years may be considered. Additional options to extend the term provided under Section 7.5, may be offered contingent upon the amortization and financial requirements of new investment and findings of benefit to the City.

VI. Leaseholds Subject to Development Agreements
Terms of leaseholds that are subject to a Development Agreement will be negotiated with the City of Santa Monica. A Development Agreement is a negotiated contract with the City that includes a developer’s contribution of significant community benefits and requires review by the Planning Commission and the Landmarks Commission, and final approval by the City Council.

7.3. Rates
Rents, fees and charges on the Pier are expected to reflect fair market value.

Adjustments can be made to provide for diverse uses consistent with the Pier Leasing Goals and Objectives or significant offsetting capital investment that provides the Pier permanent benefits also consistent with the Goals and Objectives.

In addition to a base rent, the City may elect to require that a lease include a percentage

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 8 | P a g e
rent provision, which can be differentiated by categories of sales. The City, as Landlord, shall have the right to audit tenant's financial records to ascertain that the gross sales figures reported by the tenant are accurate.

Leaseholds with preferred uses for research and public educational purposes (e.g. Santa Monica Pier Aquarium) may be maintained at other than fair market rental rates. The City will seek to reasonably minimize its costs associated with these activities by participating in ancillary gross receipts from commercial activities at educational facilities.

7.4. Hours of Operation
The Santa Monica Pier is a public venue open 365 days per year 24 hours per day. Pier merchants will be encouraged to remain open for business with adjustments related to the time of year and type of business. Minimum business hours when all businesses are expected to be in operation, unless otherwise specified, shall be daily between the hours of 11 am and 9 pm. Tenants will not be required to operate on Christmas Day and Thanksgiving.

7.5. Modifications Based on Findings of Exceptional Community Benefit Diversity of ownership in Section 6. IV and the length of term in Subsection 7.2.1. V may be modified if all four of the following findings can be made and documented:

I. The proposed project will provide an exceptional opportunity to fulfill a goal or objective of the Pier Guiding Principles and will enhance the unique character and the viability of the Pier.

II. The proposed project will require substantial capital investment and provide an exceptional return opportunity to the City.

III. The proposed project will enhance the mix of uses on the Pier while still being consistent with the Pier’s unique character.

IV. The proposed project will provide a significant enhancement to the visitor experience at the Pier.

7.6. Triple Net Lease
Unless otherwise specified, Tenant shall pay all property taxes and assessments (including Possessory Interest Tax), insurance, utilities and Common Area Maintenance Fees‐‐as defined below‐‐as well as any duly‐enacted future assessment or fee that the City may elect to institute.

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 9 | P a g e

7.7. Common Area Maintenance Fees
As a condition of occupancy of a Pier building, Leasehold tenants shall pay a proportionate share of the City’s Common Area Maintenance (“CAM”) cost to manage, maintain and provide security to Santa Monica Pier. On January 1, 2000, the applied Common Area Maintenance cost was modified to provide for a fixed CAM payment with biennial increases of not less than three percent (3%) and no greater than six percent (6%) per annum. Currently the CAM fee is $7.65 per square foot per year.

7.8. General Operational and Performance Standards
Tenants must maintain high quality and uniform standards of operation and service to sustain and increase demand for their business, maintain positive customer experience, and enhance the overall reputation of the Santa Monica Pier. In order to achieve the highest standards of operations the following standards may be incorporated into each lease and license:

I. Tenants are expected to staff and operate their businesses in a first‐class and reputable manner, commensurate with transacting a high volume of business on the Pier.

II. Periodically, Landlord or Tenant may engage a third party “mystery shopper” to visit and evaluate Pier businesses. Tenant will provide an action plan for improvement if so requested by the Landlord.

III. Tenants shall respond to Landlord’s written inquiries regarding any complaints or issues, including postings on social media sitesrelated to Tenant’s operations. Tenant will provide an action plan for improvement if so requested by the Landlord.

IV. Food operations that receive a designation from the Los Angeles County Department of Health of less than an “A” more than three times during the term of the lease or license, except to the extent that any such rating is restored to an “A” within 30 days of receiving the lower grade, will be in default and breach of the lease/license.

Landlord recognizes that third party action may require additional time to reinstate “A” rating and may request tenant to provide an action plan for improvement.

V. Any Lease extension option will be conditioned upon Tenant’s economic performance. For example, Tenants with a percentage rent clause should have reached rent levels requiring percentage rent payments to City for at least two of the four rental years immediately prior to the expiration of the lease.

VI. Landlord may establish an annual review process to be performed by Office of Pier Management Staff to evaluate key criteria utilizing a standardized rating scale.

VII. Each Lease or License may have additional operational and performance

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 10 | P a g e
standards applicable to the particular Tenant’s operation.

7.9. Maintenance and Environmental Responsibilities
Lessees and Licensees shall be responsible for maintaining their facilities in attractive and safe condition, in compliance with applicable building codes and all applicable environmental laws, ordinances, regulations and standards. This includes all areas under their lease, the facades and exterior presentations, and appurtenance’s of their facility or operation.

8. CITY POLICY PROVISIONS

8.1. Labor Peace
The City owns the Pier and has a financial or proprietary interest in Pier businesses engaged in visitor‐serving commercial activities. Some of these businesses are in industries that have a history of labor/management conflict. Risk of interruption of rental revenue and common area maintenance fees received by the City from Pier businesses would be minimized if such businesses were assured of labor peace. An appropriate labor peace provision would minimize the City’s exposure to revenue interruption and disruption of public recreational enjoyment of the Pier.

Therefore, new or substantially amended agreements for leasehold operation shall provide that the tenant will not engage in practices that impede employees’ ability to organize and contract with a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining. Such prohibited practices include harassment, intimidation, “captive audience” anti‐ union meetings or illegal terminations of workers in retaliation for organizing. A substantial amendment is defined as a change of use of the property, an increase in seating or square footage of more than 25%, or an extension of lease duration. Tenant engagement in prohibited practices shall constitute an event of default under the terms of lease. Affected leases would be those businesses having five or more full or part‐time employees that engage in restaurant or visitor‐serving entertainment activities such as arcades, amusement parks and nightclubs.

8.2. Sustainability
The City of Santa Monica is committed to meeting its existing needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore in order to conserve and enhance local resources, safeguard human health and the environment, maintain a healthy and diverse economy, and improve the livability and quality of life for all community members in Santa Monica, each new or

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 11 | P a g e
substantially amended agreement for leasehold operation shall include provisions that require sustainable practices including:

A. Carbon Foot Print Reduction. Tenant shall use best efforts to help meet City‐wide carbon footprint reduction goals by minimizing unnecessary use of electricity and water, minimizing or eliminating use of hazardous or toxic materials, and minimizing single‐ occupancy vehicle trips by facilitating employee use of alternative transportation modes such as carpools, buses, vanpools, and bicycles. A list of green business best practices is available at: www.sustainableworks.org
B. Healthy Food/Sustainable Food Provision. Tenant shall exercise best efforts to procure and promote healthy and sustainable food practices on the Premises.

Approachesinclude utilizing locally and sustainably grown, organic foods from California; offering meatless menu options and food that has been minimally processed; and reducing food packaging waste. Tenant is expected to participate in recycling and composting programs offered by the City. Information on the City’s Sustainable Food Commitment is available at: www.sustainablesm.org/food.

C. Non‐Recyclable Food Service Container Ban. Tenant shall comply with the City of Santa Monica Ordinance (S.M.C.C. 5.44) banning non‐recyclable plastic disposable food service containers. Information on the Non‐Recyclable Food Service Container Ban is available at: www.sustainablesm.org/container.

D. Single Use Carryout Bag Ban. Tenant shall comply with the City of Santa Monica Ordinance (S.M.C.C. 5.45) banning the use of single‐use plastic carry‐out bags.

Information on the Single‐Use Carryout Bag Ban is available at: www.sustainablesm.org/bag.

A. Forest Stewardship Council Approved Products. Tenant is expected to follow the recommendations of the Forest Stewardship Council recommended products list in procurement of supplies.

8.3. Landlord’s Licensing Program
The Landlord and The Santa Monica Pier Corporation may engage in sponsorship programs applicable to all tenants on the Santa Monica Pier. Tenant shall agree to participate in and be subject to such sponsorship program(s) so long as the terms of sponsor products, goods and/or services are at least as favorable to Tenant as the terms of agreements applicable to the same products, goods and/or services supplied to Tenant for use on the Premises at the time of Landlord’s or Pier Corporation’s request for Tenant participation‐‐provided that such sponsorship program does not violate any contractual agreements entered into by Tenant.

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 12 | P a g e

9. DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Santa Monica Pier 1987 Design Guidelines remain the primary reference regarding structures on the Pier, encouraging a balanced respect for the historic architectural elements and unique character of Pier with the intent to advance the range of activities and services to enhance the visitor experience and success of Pier operations and businesses. All public and private structural modifications and other improvements proposed on the Pier will be subject to review for consistency with the Design Guidelines, without exception.

The City’s Economic Development Division in its proprietary capacity as Landlord must review and approve in writing all proposed modifications before any regulatory action, including submission of applications to Planning or Building and Safety. The regulatory permit and entitlement process involves the City as regulator, not as Landlord. These are entirely separate roles and approval of one does not mean approval by the other.

10. TENANCY RELATIONSHIPS
All City‐owned buildings and deck areas on Santa Monica Pier appropriate and suitable for leasing or licensing by the City to individual tenancies or licensees will be in accordance with agreements prepared by the City. Each tenant or licensee will be responsible for interior maintenance and repair and utility consumption at its sole expense, and the City generally will retain responsibility for maintenance and repair of roofs and exterior of City buildings, and of the Pier deck and substructure unless otherwise specified in the lease or license. Structures constructed by tenants are subject to interior and exterior maintenance and repair by the tenant at its sole expense. The City shall have a right to inspect all tenant improvements, including fixed assets that will revert to the City at the end of the lease term, for the purpose of determining maintenance and repair needs. If necessary, Tenant is responsible for making repairs to, or replacing, such fixed assets at its sole expense.

11. TENANT RECRUITMENT
All City‐owned buildings and deck areas on Santa Monica Pier appropriate and suitable for leasing or licensing will be subject to a public procurement and solicitation process to identify prospective tenants and licensees whose financial and professional experience, and products and/or services are consistent with the Leasing Goals and Objectives set forth herein.

Prospective tenants will be sought by publicly noticing the availability of a leasing opportunity on the City’s web site and through other appropriate forms of communication designed to reach the intended audience. This may include printed and electronic advertisements in appropriate trade journals or newspapers; display

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 13 | P a g e
banners on the property; and other forms of outreach to potential operators. In addition, the City may retain a qualified commercial real estate brokerage firm or listing agent to market the leasing opportunity, identify prospective tenants, and cooperate with other realtors.

All prospective tenants must submit a Lease or License Application to the City.

Information contained in the Lease or License Application shall describe the proposed use for the available space; provide information about the respondents’ experience; provide references; describe in detail the financial capability of the respondent to perform; and set forth preliminary terms and conditions.

12. EVALUATIVE CRITERIA AND SELECTION
Leasing opportunities at the Pier are very limited. Therefore, each lease is vital in order to maintain a vibrant mix of uses and sustainable Pier business environment.

This requires an extensive outreach effort and a thorough review and selection process.

The Pier Manager will appoint an evaluation panel to review all applications submitted to the City. The panel will include representativesfrom the Office of Pier Management; the Economic Development Division; the Pier Corporation; and other City staff and other organizations and consultants as appropriate.

The panel will review and evaluate applications based on uniform criteria that may include but are not limited to the following: (i) character, reputation, training, and experience of the prospective tenant or licensee; (ii) ability, capacity, and skill of the prospective tenant or licensee to perform; (iii) quality and price of the services or goods to be provided; (iv) uniqueness and compatibility of proposed product or service with the Santa Monica Pier, (v) financial capability; and (vi) length of tenure in an Exemplary Manner (see below) on the Pier.

The selection process will include additional bonus points for existing Pier tenants and licensees who are deemed to have operated in an Exemplary Manner. The term “Exemplary Manner” will mean and refer to those Pier tenant or licensees who meet all of the following criteria: Merchants that throughout the term of their lease or license have:
(i) provided consumers with relevant and quality merchandise, food and activities,
(ii) demonstrated a track record of good customer service, (iii) regularly updated and invested in their operation and premises; (iv) demonstrated increasing sales volume over time;

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 14 | P a g e
(v) have been productive and active members of the Pier Community; and (vi) complied with all lease or license provisions, as well as all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations.

Proposers may be asked by the panel to participate in an oral interview in order to clarify or elaborate on their proposal and to demonstrate samples of products or services. The panel also may request verification of credit history and may contact references.

The evaluation panel will provide to the Pier Manager its analysis and recommendation of a preferred respondent or respondents, inclusive of appropriate bonus points. The panel’s recommendation also may be to reject all responses, solicit additional information from one or more respondents, or to enter into exclusive lease or license negotiations with a preferred respondent.

13. LEASE APPROVALS & DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
The City Manager has the authority to negotiate and execute leases and licenses with terms of three years or less for uses in accordance with this Leasing Guideline, and on the basis of written agreements prepared and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

Leases and licenses with terms of occupancy greater than three years and lessthan twenty‐five years,shall require a recommendation of the Pier Corporation Board to the City Manager to enter into a lease or license with the preferred respondent subject to specific terms and conditions; enter into exclusive negotiations with a preferred respondent; reject the recommendation; or direct that additional information be solicited prior to making a determination. In negotiating leases, staff will refer to any suggestions or recommendations of the board.

Negotiation of leases and licenses with terms of occupancy greater than twenty‐ five years shall require authorization by Council following a recommendation from the Pier Corporation Board.

The City Attorney will prepare and approve as to form all lease and license agreements for review and execution by the prospective tenant or licensee. The executed lease or license agreement will be submitted to the City Manager If determined to be in accordance with the Leasing Guidelines, Pier Corporation Board recommendation, and Council authorization if required, the City Manager will execute the agreement.

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 15 | P a g e

14. PROTEST/APPEAL PROCESS
Applicants not selected as the preferred respondent by the evaluation panel will be informed by letter or email. Protestant may file a written protest with the City’s Economic Development Manager no more than seven (7) calendar days following the notification. The written protest must set forth, in detail, all grounds for the protest, including without limitation all facts, supporting documentation, legal authorities and arguments in support of the grounds for the protest. All factual contentions must be supported by competent, admissible and credible evidence.

Any matters not set forth in the written protest shall be deemed waived. Any protest not conforming to this procedure shall be rejected as invalid. The protest must include the name, address, and telephone number of the person representing the protesting party.

The Economic Development Manager shall review the merits and timeliness of the protest and issue a written decision to the Protestant within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the protest.

The decision of the Economic Development Manager may be appealed to the City’s Housing and Economic Development Director by filing a letter appeal within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Economic Development Manager’s decision. The letter of appeal shall set forth, in detail, all grounds for the appeal, including without limitation all facts, supporting documentation, legal authorities and arguments in support of the grounds for the appeal. All factual contentions must be supported by competent, admissible and credible evidence. Any matters not set forth in the letter of appeal shall be deemed waived. Any letter of appeal not conforming to this procedure shall be rejected as invalid.

The City’s Housing and Economic Development Director shall review the merits and timeliness of the letter of appeal and issue a written decision to the Protestant within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the letter of appeal. The decision of the Director is final.

Attachment A. Santa Monica Pier Lease and License Inventory

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) 16 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A.

SANTA MONICA PIER LEASE AND LICENSE INVENTORY (Updated Dec. 2013) As of the date of adoption of these Guidelines, the buildings and areas on the Santa Monica Pier available for lease or license consists of (but are not be limited to) the following:

Address Current User/Use Square
Footage
Current Term
Expiration
1600 Oceanfront Walk Santa Monica Pier Aquarium/Marine research and educational facility.
4,533 sf. June 2018
200‐A Santa Monica Pier Pier Shop/Retail shop offering souvenir items and booksfeaturing local history and themes.
260 sf. April 2014
200‐B Santa Monica Pier Soda Jerks/‘Old Fashion’ Soda Fountain. 400 sf. July 2025 250 Santa Monica Pier Ristorante Al Mare/Full Service Restaurant with alcohol and ancillary entertainment.
6,069 sf. +1,033
patios
December 2038
256 Santa Monica Pier Rusty’s Surf Ranch/Fullservice restaurant with alcoholservice, and with evening music and
entertainment.
3,035 sf. +
1,073 sf. patios
September 2029
258 Santa Monica Pier The Albright (SM Pier Seafood)/Fullservice restaurant with alcoholservice.
2,557 sf. +
1,392 sf. patio
June 2020
301 Santa Monica Pier Bubba Gump Shrimp Co./Fullservice restaurant with alcoholservice.
8,955 sf. May 2027
310 Santa Monica Pier Blazing Saddles/Bicycle rentals, with ancillary sales of bicycle‐related merchandise.
1,292 sf. Oct 2003
month‐to‐month
321 Santa Monica Pier Oatman Rock Shop/Retail shop offering souvenir items and gifts.
135 sf. April 2013
month‐to‐month
322 Santa Monica Pier Starline Tours/Tour sales, visitor info services. 250 sf. April 2016 330 Santa Monica Pier Pier Burger/Limited service convenience restaurant without alcoholservice.
1,525 sf. +
584 sf. patio
Sept 2023
350 Santa Monica Pier Playland Arcade/Arcade with ancillary retail sales.
8,603 sf. +
641 sf. patios
June 2031
350‐B Santa Monica Pier Marlene’s Beachcomber/Retailsales of beach related items.
375 sf July 2009
month‐to‐month
370 Santa Monica Pier Trapeze School NY/ Trapeze school. 10,985 sf. gross deck area
April 2015
380 Santa Monica Pier Pacific Park/Amusement park with rides, games and ancillary retail and food service.
70,000 sf. gross
deck area
May 2046
401 Santa Monica Pier Mariasol Cucina/Fullservice restaurant with alcoholservice.
6,204 sf. + 2,217
sf. patios
March 2028
404 Santa Monica Pier SM Bait and Tackle/Fishing bait and tackle with ancillary retail and food sales.
292 sf. June 2004
month‐to‐month
Trolley Kiosk 66 to Cali/Pier related souvenir and sundries. 85 sf June 2016 Mobile Vending Carts Pier and/or beach‐oriented retail and food that is not otherwise available on the Pier.

Aprox 25 sf. each varies

5.A.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Pier Leasing Guidelines (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) PacParkWorkingModel with Charts for tables 091922 REM TERM GRAPH 9/19/2022 $0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

PERCENTAGE RENT REVENUE TO CITY OVER CURRENT TERM OF PACIFIC PARK LEASE

EXISTING LEASE COMPARED TO REVISED LEASE

WITH EXISTING LEASE WITH REVISED LEASE

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Rent Projection (5145 : Pacific Park Lease Extension) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.B
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David White, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Ramon Batista, Police Chief, Police Department
Subject: Approval of Fiscal Year 2022-23 Appropriation of Revenue and Expenditure Budgets for Donations Made to the We Are Santa Monica Fund to Support the Santa Monica Police Cadet Program
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report to appropriate funds donated to the We Are Santa Monica Fund to expand the Police Cadet Program.

Summary
A group of four community members and business owners donated a total of $400,000 to the We Are Santa Monica Fund for the sole and exclusive purpose of expanding the Police Cadet Program. The We Are Santa Monica Fund Advisory Board approved accepting the donations for this purpose. Since donations to the We Are Santa Monica donor-advised fund are made to the fund’s steward, California Community Foundation, Council’s approval is not needed to accept the donation. Council action is needed, however, to appropriate the corresponding revenue and expenditure budgets.

Discussion
In April 2022, a community member approached the City of Santa Monica with an interest in raising funds to support the Santa Monica Police Department and enhance public safety. Staff determined any such charitable contributions would be best utilized to help restore the Police Cadet Program, a valued community program that was eliminated during the 2020 budget restructuring, but slowly has been revived with six

5.B
Packet Pg. 50
2 of 4
cadets currently participating in the program compared to the pre-pandemic total of 21 participants.

The SMPD Cadet Program is a law enforcement apprenticeship program founded in 1967. The goal of the program is to assist young people in their achievement of a college degree prior to their 21st birthday. In 1967, Santa Monica was one of the few police departments in the country that required a college degree. The Cadet Program’s initial goal was to help attract and keep new police recruits to the Santa Monica Police Department.

The Police Cadet expectations are high morals, excelling academically, using good judgment, and being active in the community. SMPD Cadets who decide to advance in public safety careers typically perform very well in civil service testing processes. Many of SMPD’s cadets have advanced to rewarding careers in a variety of sworn and civilian law enforcement positions at the municipal, state, and federal levels. Others have opted to work in related civil service positions with various government agencies.

Following initial conversations with the community member, Jordan Kaplan, who expressed interest in raising funds to support SMPD and enhancing public safety, Mr.

Kaplan, who is the President/CEO of Douglas Emmett Inc., committed to donating $100,000 to the We Are Santa Monica Fund with the understanding that the funds would be used solely for expanding the Police Cadet program.

To further advance restoring this beloved community program, Mr. Kaplan then pledged to challenge several of his peers to match his donation. His efforts resulted in an extraordinary outcome of an additional $300,000 being donated to the We Are Santa Monica Fund, through $100,000 donations each from Mr. Jeff Worthe, Macerich Management, and Ocean Avenue LLC (Fairmont Miramar). All four donors have heavily invested in and contributed to our community as property owners and business owners with their company headquarters located in Santa Monica, and they collectively employ hundreds of people in the city. These generous donations demonstrate their commitment to giving back to Santa Monica residents by supporting citywide public

5.B
Packet Pg. 51
3 of 4
safety and providing opportunities for local college students to gain valuable job training in the Cadet Program
These donations would support hiring an additional five cadets for four years, which aligns with the cadets’ anticipated four-years of enrollment as full-time students in an accredited undergraduate degree program, a requirement for SMPD cadet participation.

Cadets are paid the City’s living wage, currently $18.17 per hour. This equates to salary costs of approximately $18,000 per cadet for the first year, with cost of living adjustments anticipated each year. Additional program expenses, such as specialized training and equipment expenses vary and would be funded by any remaining funds from these donations, as well as SMPD’s existing operating budget.

Advisory Board Action
On June 8, 2022, the We Are Santa Monica Fund Advisory Board unanimously approved accepting the $400,000 total donation for the express purpose of supporting the Police Cadet Program. The We Are Santa Monica Fund is a City-initiated donoradvised fund stewarded by California Community Foundation, a 501c3 non-profit organization. The We Are Santa Monica Fund Advisory Board, composed of seven Santa Monica residents, is appointed by and advisory to the City Manager. The advisory board’s charge is to fundraise for charitable areas of support approved by Council and vet funding requests from non-profit organizations to exclusively serve the Santa Monica community. Donations to the fund technically are made to California Community Foundation and therefore do not require City Council approval for acceptance, but Council’s approval is required for appropriation of the relevant revenue and expenditure budgets.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to appropriate the first year of funds received by the City of Santa Monica from the We Are Santa Monica Fund to support the Santa Monica Police Cadet Program and recommends the following budget changes.

5.B
Packet Pg. 52
4 of 4
FY 2022-23 Budget Changes
Establish Revenue Budget Appropriate Funds
Account Number Amount Account Number Amount
10180001.417030 $100,000 0118000X.511507 $100,000
01800001.692160 ($100,000)
10800002.692160 $100,000
Total $100,000 Total $100,000
The We Are Santa Monica Fund will disburse $100,000 to the City each fiscal year for four years. Future budget appropriation of $100,000 annually will be included in subsequent fiscal year budgets, contingent on Council approval.

Prepared By: Melissa Spagnuolo, Acting Community Partnerships Administrator Approved Forwarded to Council

5.B
Packet Pg. 53
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.C
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Approval to Extend the Council Public Input Pilot Until March 2023 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council extend the pilot program consolidating general public input and public comment on agenda items prior to Closed Session and after the Consent Calendar from December 31, 2022 to March 31, 2023.

Discussion
At the May 24, 2022, Council meeting, a study session was held to discuss ways in which Council meeting management can be improved. At that time, Council directed staff to return with a resolution adopting a pilot through December 31, 2022, consolidating public comment at the beginning of the meeting in the following manner:

Public comment on non-agenda items, Special Agenda Items, Closed Session, and all Public Agenda Items, except Public Hearings. Comments for Public Hearings (items that require public notice such as appeals, zoning changes and other items required by law) will be heard when the items are called. Council directed staff to amend the Council Rules resolution to accommodate this pilot program. The amendment was adopted by Council at the June 21, 2022, Special Council meeting to take effect with the June 28, 2022, Council meeting.

Since the implementation of the pilot, staff has been diligently working to make adjustments to the process as incidents arise, including managing the nuances of the meeting management system to correlate with the rule changes. In the meantime, several Council meetings are being cancelled and/or rescheduled in the months of

5.C
Packet Pg. 54
2 of 2
November and December to accommodate for Election Day and the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, limiting the time staff has to continue to ensure the process is effective and efficient. Furthermore, at least two new Councilmembers will be elected at the 2022 General Election who will not have the benefit of becoming familiar with the pilot in enough time to be able to intelligently form an opinion to vote on the matter in December when the pilot ends. Given all these circumstances, staff recommends that Council extend the pilot program for an additional three months to March 31, 2023.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There are no budgetary impacts associated with this staff report.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, Assistant City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. SR-06-21-2022 8.A. Amend Council Rules and Boards & Commissions Policies (1
B. R11427_Council Rules
C. Written Comment

5.C
Packet Pg. 55
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 21, 2022
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution to Amend Council Rules of Order and Procedure for the Conduct of City Council Meetings
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Provide direction to staff regarding changing the time limit(s) for public comment;

2. Provide direction to staff regarding order for hearing both in-person and remote public comment and the discontinuation of the time donation to another speaker policy upon implementation of hybrid meetings;

3. Provide direction to staff regarding the continuation of Boards and Commissions to meet quarterly and remotely until the end of calendar year 2022 or until the end of the 1st quarter of 2023;

4. Implement hybrid City Council meetings beginning with the first regular Council meeting in September, pending budget approval of staffing; and

5. Adopt the attached proposed resolution amending the City Council’s Rules of Order and Procedure.

Summary
At the May 24, 2022, Council meeting, a study session was held to discuss ways in which Council meeting management can be improved and allow for remote public comment. At that time, Council directed staff to return with resolution(s) adopting the following meeting format changes:

1. Setting a fixed public meeting start time for regular meetings of 7:00 p.m., with 7:00 being the set time to end Closed Session;

2. As a pilot through December 31, 2022, consolidating the following public comment at the beginning of the meeting:

5.C.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: SR-06-21-2022 8.A. Amend Council Rules and Boards & Commissions Policies (1 (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) 2 of 7
Special Items, Closed Session, and all Public Agenda Items, except Public Hearings. Comments for Public Hearings (items that require public notice such as appeals, zoning changes and other items required by law) will be heard when the items are called.

3. Moving proclamations and other special items ahead of Closed Session;

4. Moving the deadline for Councilmember Discussion Items (13 Items) to noon on Monday, 8 days ahead of the Council meeting; and

5. Having quarterly updates from Council ad hoc committees.

In addition to consolidating all public comment to the beginning of the meeting, there was universal support amongst Councilmembers for implementing a remote public comment option for both Council and board and commission meetings.

Discussion
Amending Council Rules
The Council’s current Rules of Order and Procedure are established by Resolution No. 11418. Rule 30 provides that the Council Rules may be amended by resolution.

To reflect the procedures Council recommended at the May 24, 2022 Council meeting, staff proposes that Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) to amend Rule 2, which governs time and place for holding regular meetings to change the start time for open session from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. It is also recommended that Rule 3 governing quorum and action be amended to include a statement regarding ad hoc committees being required to report to Council quarterly. Staff further recommends amending Rule 5 (c) governing placing Councilmember agenda items on the agenda to submit items for regular meetings by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, eight (8) days prior to the proceeding Council meeting. Finally, staff recommends amending Rule 6, which governs categories and order of business as follows:
(a) Call to Order.
(b) Salute to the Flag.

5.C.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: SR-06-21-2022 8.A. Amend Council Rules and Boards & Commissions Policies (1 (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) 3 of 7
(c) Roll Call.
(d) Public Comment for Closed Session, Special Agenda, and Consent Calendar Items Only.
(e) Closed Session.
(f) Special Agenda Items. This item includes the City Manager’s Report, proclamations, commendations, introductions of special guests, special meetings, appointments to the City Council and presentations and reports by other non-City public entities or legislative bodies. (g) Consent Calendar. The consent calendar shall consist of the approval of minutes of previous meetings and those other items such as contracts and routine resolutions which do not necessitate a separate public hearing and which are determined in the Agenda preparation process to be relatively non-controversial. Ordinances for second reading and adoption may be placed on the consent calendar if all members of the City Council were present when the vote for first reading and introduction took place and this vote was unanimous. The consent calendar shall be considered as one item regardless of the number of matters appearing on it and may be approved by a single vote. The title to the individual consent items need not be read unless a request to do so is made by any Councilmember. Members of the public shall have no more than one opportunity to address the City Council concerning any and all items on the consent calendar. Members of the public shall be heard prior to City Council consideration of the consent calendar. Councilmembers may request to have individual matters removed from the consent calendar so that they may be heard on those matters. All matters remaining on the

5.C.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: SR-06-21-2022 8.A. Amend Council Rules and Boards & Commissions Policies (1 (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) 4 of 7
consent calendar may be approved by a single vote. Any items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered separately in the order of their appearance on the Agenda. Removed items may be heard immediately following the consent calendar or may be heard after the City Council concludes Closed Session or Study Session. (h) General Public Input. Allows members of the public to address the City Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda that are within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the agenda. As a result, no formal action may be taken on any matter under this item. (i) Public Comment on Agenda Items. Allows members of the public to have the opportunity to speak on items on the agenda before or during the City Council’s consideration of the item, except where a public hearing is required by law.
(j) Study Session. During Study Sessions staff will present information regarding a complex matter that will be subject to Council deliberation and decisions in the future. No City Council action will be recommended or taken as part of the Study Session.
(k) Continued Items. This item includes agendized items of a previous City Council meeting not considered at such meeting. The City Council may vote by a majority of its members to have a carry-over item placed on a subsequent agenda as a continued item.
(l) Administrative Proceedings. This item includes proceedings requiring the City Council to make a quasi-judicial decision concerning an individual application or appeal.

5.C.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: SR-06-21-2022 8.A. Amend Council Rules and Boards & Commissions Policies (1 (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) 5 of 7
(m) Ordinances.
(1) Second Reading and Adoption. No public discussion is permitted on second readings.
(2) Introduction and First Reading.
(n) Staff Administrative Items. This category will include policy matters to be considered by the City Council or at joint meetings of the City Council, Parking Authority, Housing Authority, the Public Financing Authority and/or Redevelopment Successor Agency.
(o) Public Hearings. This item consists of public hearings required by specific provisions of law.
(p) Reports of Boards and Commissions. Boards and commissions who may present reports under this item include, but are not limited to, all City boards, commissions and task forces. Reports may also be provided by the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Convention and Visitors Bureau.
(q) Resolutions. A resolution will be considered under this item only if its substance makes extensive public input advisable, or if it should be considered after another item on the Agenda, otherwise the resolution will be considered on the Consent Calendar.
(r) Written Communication. This item allows the City Council to consider issues raised by written submissions from the public.
(s) Councilmember Requested Items. This category consists of Councilmember requested agenda items. Action and direction may occur on these items to the extent specified in the agenda item.

5.C.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: SR-06-21-2022 8.A. Amend Council Rules and Boards & Commissions Policies (1 (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) 6 of 7
Councilmembers should discuss requested agenda items in advance with the City Manager to see if the City Manager will place them on the agenda as Staff Administrative Items or otherwise or address them in other ways. (t) Public Input. This item allows members of the public to address the City Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda that are within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the agenda. As a result, no formal action may be taken on any matter under this item.

Staff is asking for direction regarding time limits for public input. Currently, Rule 15 (e) regarding time limits stipulates that members of the public shall limit their remarks to two minutes per agenda item for a total of six minutes per meeting. Now that Council has approved consolidating all public comment, including general public input, to the beginning of the meeting, staff is recommending keeping the six-minute maximum per meeting, with a two minute maximum per comment section. This does not affect public comment where public hearings are required by law.

Hybrid Meetings
In addition to the changes to the meeting format, Council voiced resounding support for including a hybrid component to both Council meetings and board and commission meetings to allow for residents who are not able to physically attend meetings in person to have an option to provide live public comment. Staff is recommending, pending budget approval, that this component be implemented effective with the first regular Council meeting in September and for boards and commission to begin at the end of calendar year 2022 or at the end of the first quarter of 2023, in order to allow adequate time to recruit staff, obtain, and install the technology needed to provide this service.

At this time, staff is asking Council to provide direction as to how public comment will be heard once the hybrid model is implemented. One option would be to allow all remote callers to be heard first to allow staff to be released once remote public comment is completed. However, this would negatively impact those persons attending the meeting

5.C.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: SR-06-21-2022 8.A. Amend Council Rules and Boards & Commissions Policies (1 (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) 7 of 7
in person, as they will have to wait until remote calling is complete. Another option would be to rotate back and forth between in-person and remote public speakers, for example, allowing three in-person speakers then three remote public speakers and so on and so forth. Further, due to the difficulty of managing time donation for remote callers, staff is recommending that Council remove rule 16(j) governing time donation to another speaker once hybrid meetings are implemented.

Remote Quarterly Meetings for Boards and Commissions
Finally, if resources are made available for hybrid meetings and the City is able to make the required findings under AB 361, staff is recommending that Council extend remote meetings for boards and commissions until the end of calendar year 2022 or until the end of the first quarter of 2023 to address the costs associated with additional staffing and training and obtaining technology to upgrade facilities in order to hold hybrid meetings.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There are no immediate impact to the budget at this time.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, Assistant City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 20220621 Council Rules
B. Written Comments
C. PowerPoint Presentation

5.C.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: SR-06-21-2022 8.A. Amend Council Rules and Boards & Commissions Policies (1 (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) 1 City Council Meeting: June 21, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. 11427 (CCS)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING THE RULES OF ORDER AND

PROCEDURE FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 11418 (CCS)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council Rules of Order and Procedure are hereby amended to read as follows:

RULES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
RULE 1. RULES OF ORDER.

Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the City Charter, the Municipal Code, or applicable provisions of state law, the procedures of the City Council shall be governed by the latest revised edition of Roberts Rules of Order.

The City Council rules, or any one thereof, may be suspended by a vote of twothirds (2/3) of the Councilmembers present.

RULE 2. TIME AND PLACE FOR HOLDING REGULAR MEETINGS.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 611 of the Santa Monica City Charter, the City Council establishes the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month as the days for holding regular meetings of the City Council. The regular meeting shall commence at 5:30 p.m., for the Closed Session. It is the intention of the City Council that all other DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) 2 agenda items shall commence no earlier than 6:30 7:00 p.m., following the Closed Session. If any such Tuesday falls on any day designated by law by the City Council as a day for public feast, Thanksgiving or holiday, such regular meeting shall be held on the date of the regular meeting next following said Tuesday at the hour heretofore fixed or at such other day as may be fixed. The City Council Chamber in City Hall is established as the place for holding the City Council’s regular meetings.

RULE 3. QUORUM AND ACTION
In accordance with Section 614 of the Santa Monica City Charter, four Councilmembers shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Except as otherwise provided in the Charter, or other law or these rules action shall be taken by a majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council. However, in the case of a quasi-judicial hearing, if only four Councilmembers are participating, the applicant or appellant shall be entitled to request and receive a continuance of the hearing, until such time as five Councilmembers are participating.

Whenever any Councilmember questions the presence of a quorum, the presiding officer shall forthwith direct the City Clerk to call the roll, each Councilmember shall respond when his or her name is called and the Clerk shall announce the result. Such proceedings shall be without debate, but no Councilmember who is speaking may be interrupted by a question as to the presence of a quorum.

The City Council may also establish standing subcommittees of its members to address designated areas of City business on the Council's behalf and may establish ad hoc committees to formulate reports or recommendations on particular matters. Ad hoc committees must provide quarterly updates to Council.

RULE 4. MEETINGS TO BE PUBLIC - EXCEPTION FOR CLOSED SESSIONS.

As required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (the “Brown Act”), California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq., all regular, adjourned regular and special meetings of the City Council shall be public, provided, however, the City Council may meet in a Closed DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) Session from which the public is excluded, for those purposes authorized by the Brown Act.

No Councilmember, employee of the City, or any other person present during a Closed Session of the City Council shall disclose to any person the content or substance of any communication which took place during the Closed Session unless the City Council specifically authorizes the disclosure by majority vote or unless the disclosure is required by law.

RULE 5. AGENDA.

The City Clerk shall prepare the Agenda under the direction of the City Manager as follows:
(a) The City Manager shall consult with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore in the preparation of the Agenda.
(b) The Agenda and all available supporting documents shall be delivered to Councilmembers on the Tuesday preceding the Tuesday City Council meeting to which it pertains or as soon thereafter as possible.
(c) Any Councilmember or the City Manager may direct that any matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction be placed upon the Agenda. Councilmembers should endeavor to submit Councilmember agenda items as follows: (1) for regular meetings, by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, eight (8) days prior to the proceeding Council meeting, in order to ensure that matters will be agendized for the following Tuesday; and (2) for special meetings, by 3:00 p.m. on the day two days before the day of the special meeting. Subject to Brown Act requirements, items submitted after 3:00 p.m. on the specified day will be agendized for the next regular meeting, unless the Councilmember has identified an urgency requiring that the matter be added to the current agenda.

Councilmember items may only be combined with other items on the agenda by a vote of the Council. A Councilmember who wishes to combine his or her item with another item on the agenda may direct that the following language be included with the DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) agenda item: “This item may be considered with Item.” The City Manager may combine staff items on the agenda in order to ensure that the public’s business is handled efficiently and conveniently.
(d) The City Clerk shall post the Agenda as required by the BrownAct. Copies of the Agenda shall be posted on the windows of the Santa Monica Institute room, located at 330 Olympic Drive, Santa Monica, California 90401. The City Clerk shall maintain on file in his or her office declarations establishing compliance with the posting requirements. (e) No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted Agenda unless the item is added to the Agenda in the manner required by the BrownAct. (f) Matters directed to be placed on the Agenda at the direction of Councilmembers shall be listed on the Agenda in the order of receipt by the City Clerk. (g) Written requests to the City Council shall be received and opened by the City Clerk and referred to the City Manager or his or her designee and either shall be transmitted to the appropriate board, commission or staff member or shall be placed on the Agenda if City Council consideration is deemed appropriate by the Mayor or City Manager. Written requests being agendized shall be scheduled for City Council consideration at the earliest convenient meeting, taking into consideration the length and content of meeting agendas. Members of the public submitting written requests shall be advised of how their request is being handled. Councilmembers shall receive copies of those written requests which are not agendized. Agendized communications shall be listed on the Agenda in order of receipt. No communication shall be placed on an Agenda if it contains material that:
(1) Is profane.
(2) Is potentially slanderous or libelous.
(3) Advocates or opposes the candidacy of any person or party for any elective office.
(4) Is primarily an advertisement or promotion or has as a substantial purpose the advancement of any cause the major benefit of which is private and not DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) public.

Members of the public submitting written requests to the City Council are encouraged to limit their submissions to one per meeting. (h) All electronic presentation materials intended for use at a City Council meeting, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy document projected by an overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than 12:00 PM on the day of a City Council meeting. For clarity, this rule shall not apply to a current member of a board or commission speaking on a matter within the purview of the board or commission on which the member sits.

RULE 6. CATEGORIES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The business of the City Council shall be conducted in the order and manner specified below. The order may be changed by a majority vote of those present. The following is the order of business:
(a) Call to Order.
(b) Salute to the Flag.
(c) Roll Call.
(d) General Public Input. Allows members of the public to address the City Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda that are within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the agenda. As a result, no formal action may be taken on any matter under this item.
(e) Public Comment for Closed Session, Special Agenda, and Consent Calendar Items Only (Proclamations, commendations, introductions of special guests, and presentations and reports by other non-City public entities or legislative bodies will also be heard at this time).

DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) (f) Closed Session.
(g) Special Agenda Items. This item includes the City Manager’s Report, special meetings, and appointments to the City Council. (h) Consent Calendar. The consent calendar shall consist of the approval of minutes of previous meetings and those other items such as contracts and routine resolutions which do not necessitate a separate public hearing and which are determined in the Agenda preparation process to be relatively non-controversial. Ordinances for second reading and adoption may be placed on the consent calendar if all members of the City Council were present when the vote for first reading and introduction took place and this vote was unanimous. The consent calendar shall be considered as one item regardless of the number of matters appearing on it and may be approved by a single vote. The title to the individual consent items need not be read unless a request to do so is made by any Councilmember. Members of the public shall have no more than one opportunity to address the City Council concerning any and all items on the consent calendar. Members of the public shall be heard prior to City Council consideration of the consent calendar. Councilmembers may request to have individual matters removed from the consent calendar so that they may be heard on those matters. All matters remaining on the consent calendar may be approved by a single vote. Any items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered separately in the order of their appearance on the Agenda. Removed items may be heard immediately following the consent calendar or may be heard after the City Council concludes Closed Session or Study Session. (i) Public Comment on Agenda Items. Allows members of the public to have the opportunity to speak on items on the agenda before or during the City Council’s Consideration of the item, except where a public hearing is required by law. (j) Study Session. During Study Sessions staff will present information regarding a complex matter that will be subject to Council deliberation and decisions in the future. No City Council action will be recommended or taken as part of the Study Session.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) (k) Continued Items. This item includes agendized items of a previous City Council meeting not considered at such meeting. The City Council may vote by a majority of its members to have a carry-over item placed on a subsequent agenda as a continued item.
(l) Administrative Proceedings. This item includes proceedings requiring the City Council to make a quasi-judicial decision concerning an individual application or appeal.
(m) Ordinances.
(1) Second Reading and Adoption. No public discussion is permitted on second readings.
(2) Introduction and First Reading.
(n) Staff Administrative Items. This category will include policy matters to be considered by the City Council or at joint meetings of the City Council, Parking Authority, Housing Authority, the Public Financing Authority and/or Redevelopment Successor Agency.
(o) Public Hearings. This item consists of public hearings required by specific provisions of law.
(p) Reports of Boards and Commissions. Boards and commissions who may present reports under this item include, but are not limited to, all City boards, commissions and task forces. Reports may also be provided by the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Convention and Visitors Bureau. (q) Resolutions. A resolution will be considered under this item only if its substance makes extensive public input advisable, or if it should be considered after another item on the Agenda, otherwise the resolution will be considered on the Consent Calendar.
(r) Written Communication. This item allows the City Council to consider issues raised by written submissions from the public.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) (s) Councilmember Requested Items. This category consists of Councilmember requested agenda items. Action and direction may occur on these items to the extent specified in the agenda item. Councilmembers should discuss requested agenda items in advance with the City Manager to see if the City Manager will place them on the agenda as Staff Administrative Items or otherwise or address them in other ways.

RULE 7. PREPARATION OF MINUTES.

The City Clerk shall have exclusive responsibility for preparation of the Minutes, and any directions for corrections in the Minutes shall be made only by majority vote of the City Council.

RULE 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

Minutes of a City Council meeting may be approved without reading if the City Clerk has previously furnished each Councilmember with a copy and unless a reading is ordered by a majority vote of the City Council.

RULE 9. PRESIDING OFFICER.

The Mayor shall be the Presiding Officer at all meetings of the City Council. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall preside. In the absence of both the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, the City Clerk shall call the City Council to order and a temporary Presiding Officer shall be elected by the Councilmembers present to serve until the arrival of the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore or until adjournment.

RULE 10. POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRESIDING OFFICER.
(a) Participation. The Presiding Officer may move, second, and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are imposed upon Councilmembers by these rules, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a Councilmember by reason of his or her acting as the Presiding Officer. (b) Duties. The Presiding Officer shall:
(1) preserve order at all meetings of the City Council; DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) (2) state (or cause to be stated) each question coming before the City Council;
(3) announce the decisions of the City Council on all subjects; (4) decide all questions of order subject to the right to appeal rulings on questions of order to the entire City Council in accordance with Rule 12(d) below; and (5) encourage all persons present at the meeting to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy.

RULE 11. SWORN TESTIMONY AND SUBPOENA POWER.

Any Councilmember may request that anyone appearing before the City Council on any matter shall be sworn. On receipt of such a request, all proceedings shall be suspended and the City Council will immediately vote on whether the individual should be sworn. A majority vote of the Councilmembers present shall determine whether the speaker shall be placed under oath. All oaths will be administered by the City Clerk.

The City Council shall have the power to issue subpoenas as provided in City Charter Section 614.

RULE 12. RULES OF DEBATE.
(a) Getting the Floor. A Councilmember desiring to speak shall gain recognition by the Presiding Officer.
(b) Questions to Staff. Every Councilmember desiring to question City staff shall address his or her questions to the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Clerk or designated staff. Members of the City staff, after recognition by the Presiding Officer shall hold the floor until completion of their remarks or until recognition is withdrawn by the Presiding Officer.
(c) Interruptions. A Councilmember who has the floor shall not be interrupted when speaking unless he or she is called to order by the Presiding Officer, a point of order or a personal privilege is raised by another Councilmember or the speaker chooses to yield to a question by another Councilmember. If a Councilmember is called to order, he or she shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) (d) Points of Order. The Presiding Officer shall determine all points of order subject to the right of any Councilmember to appeal to the City Council. If an appeal is taken, the question shall be: “Shall the decision of the Presiding Officer be overruled?” The Presiding Officer's decision may be overruled by a two-thirds vote of the Councilmembers then present.
(e) Point of Personal Privilege. The right of a Councilmember toaddress the City Council on a question of personal privilege shall be limited to cases in which the Councilmember’s integrity, character, or motives are questioned or where the safety or welfare of the City Council is concerned.
(f) Privilege of Final Comment. The Councilmember moving the introduction or adoption of an ordinance, resolution, or motion, shall have the privilegeof speaking last on the matter after all other Councilmembers have been given an opportunity to speak. (g) Motion to Reconsider Legislative Actions. A motion to reconsider any legislative action taken by the City Council may be made only by one of the Councilmembers on the prevailing side and may be seconded by any Councilmember.

Such motion may be made at any time and shall be debatable. A motion by a nonprevailing Councilmember or a request by a member of the public for reconsideration may be made only if one year has passed since the action was taken. (h) Calling for the Question. A question may be called by majority vote of those present. However, neither the moving party nor the party seconding any motion may call for the question, each Councilmember shall be afforded one opportunity to speak on each item before the question is called, and a question may not be called to interrupt or cut off a particular speaker.
(i) Limitation of Debate. Councilmembers shall limit their remarks to the subject under debate. No Councilmember shall be allowed to speak more than once upon any particular subject until every other Councilmember desiring to do so has spoken. Prior to beginning deliberation, the Council may, by a two-thirds vote of those present, limit the amount of time that each Councilmember may spend stating his or her views on a DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) particular agenda item.

RULE 13. PROTEST AGAINST CITY COUNCIL ACTION.

Any Councilmember shall have the right to have the reasons for his or her opposition to any action of the City Council entered in the Minutes. Such opposition shall be made in the following manner: “I would like the Minutes to reflect that I opposed this action for the following reasons…”
RULE 14. DISCLOSURE FOR QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS.

On quasi-judicial matters, Councilmembers shall verbally disclose off-the-record contacts relating to the item, after the item is called and before City Council consideration of the matter. Disclosure shall include the identity of any individual(s) with whom the Councilmember had contact, and the nature of the contact.

RULE 15. PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
(a) Permitted. Pursuant to the Brown Act, public testimony is permitted on all agenda items, except ordinances for second reading, and the public shall have an opportunity to comment on any matter which is not on the Agenda but is within the City Council’s jurisdiction. However, members of the public do not have the right to give testimony outside the scope of or unrelated to the agenda item under consideration.

Additionally, members of the public should strive to avoid unduly reiterating their own or others’ testimony.
(b) Registration. Any member of the public wishing to address the CityCouncil regarding any item on the Agenda for public discussion shall register with the City Clerk staff prior to the start of the meeting, if possible, but no later than prior to the public hearing on that item. Except when donating time to another speaker, which will only be permitted when both the person donating time and the other speaker are physically present at the Council meeting, a request received after the start of the hearing shall be considered late and may only be heard with Council approval.
(c) Manner of Addressing the City Council. After being recognized by the DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) Presiding Officer, each member of the public addressing the City Council shall go to the podium, state his or her name and whom he or she is representing, if he or she represents an organization or other person. Each member of the public is encouraged, but not required, to also state his or her address, neighborhood, or city of residence. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof. After a public hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall address the City Council on the matter under consideration without first securing City Council approval.
(d) Written Public Comment. Those wishing to provide public comment are encouraged to submit it in writing via email to be viewed online. For written comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the Council meeting best efforts shall be made to have them posted on the Council’s online agenda. All written comments shall be made part of the public record.
(e) Time Limits. Except on Written Communication, members of the public shall limit their remarks to two minutes per comment section unless the City Council grants additional time by majority vote or the City Council reduces this time limit because of the large number of speakers for public comment on the particular item. The order in which members of the public provide remarks will be determined by the City Clerk, to the extent possible giving priority to K-12 students speaking on their own behalf, those limiting their time to one minute on an item, while members of the public using the full two minutes will speak afterwards. Persons speaking on another’s written communication and persons submitting late speaker requests, who receive permission to speak shall be limited to one minute. On Written Communication, those speaking on another’s item may speak only if the person raising the matter appears and testifies. If the person who raises the item does not appear and testify, the matter shall be received and filed and persons wishing to speak on the matter may give their testimony during Public Input. A member of the public wishing to speak on more than one item shall limit his or her remarks to a total of six minutes per meeting unless the City Council grants additional time by majority vote. A member of the public may allocate time between items in one-minute increments up to two minutes. Testimony given as an applicant or appellant does not count toward the sixDocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) minute maximum. A Board or Commission member reporting to the City Council on behalf of a Board or Commission shall not be subject to these rules on time limits; however, City Council may limit the duration of such reports.
(f) Special Time Limits for Applicants and Appellants. Applicants and appellants on administrative items and public hearings shall limit their remarks to ten minutes and may reserve some of their time for use for rebuttal at the conclusion of the public hearing. The appellant shall have the opportunity to address the City Council first andlast. (g) Special Time Limits for Special Agenda Items. Public testimony is permitted on the City Manager’s Report and Appointments to the City Council. Proclamations, commendations and appearances by special guests are ceremonial items. In order to ensure adequate time for the Council’s regular business, groups of honorees or guests, who wish to speak, should appoint one or two representatives to speak for them. (h) Special Assistance for Those Who Cannot Wait to Speak. Members of the public, including those with special needs, who cannot wait to speak on an agenda item may request assistance from the City Clerk, and a member of the Clerk's office will provide assistance in preparing a written statement of testimony for distribution to the City Council.
(i) Extended Time Limits for Speakers Who Require Interpreter. A member of the public who utilizes an interpreter to provide English language translation shall receive twice the time otherwise allotted under these Rules.
(j) Donating Time to Another Speaker. Donations of time to other speakers may be made only if both the person donating time and the other speaker are physically present at the Council meeting. Except on Public Input, a member of the public, speaking on their own behalf, may donate two minutes per agenda item to another speaker, speaking on their own behalf, and a speaker may accept one such donation from another per agenda item. The speaker and the person donating time shall turn in their chits together, notify the clerk of the donation, and go to the podium together. The speaker shall state both of their names and state that he or she is speaking for both. Donated time shall not increase an individual speaker’s total time limit of six minutes per meeting. Any DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) request received after the start of the hearing shall be considered late and the donator will not be permitted to donate his/her time.
(k) Any electronic presentation materials presented as attachments to written public comment submitted by email for viewing online must be submitted in accordance with the time deadline set forth in Section 15(d) above. Electronic presentation materials will not be accepted in connection with public comment being provided by calling in to the Council meeting. For speakers who will be physically present to provide public comment at the Council meeting, all electronic presentation materials intended for use in connection with the public comment, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy document projected by the overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than 12:00 PM on the day of a City Council meeting. All such electronic presentation materials must be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office and include the City Council meeting date, agenda item number, and name of the public speaker who, as noted above, will need to be present at the meeting. For clarity, this rule shall not apply to a current member of a board or commission speaking on a matter within the purview of the board or commission on which the member sits – arrangements for the use of electronic presentation materials by such a speaker should be made with the City Clerk by no later than 2:00 pm on the day of the Council Meeting.

RULE 16. RULES OF CONDUCT AND SAFETY.

When the City Council is in session, all persons present, whether in person or speaking by phone, must preserve safety and order and should strive to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy. Members of the public who are physically present at the Council meeting should sit in the audience seating area, unless addressing the City Council or entering or leaving the Council Chambers, should not block the aisles with personal belongings and should not bring audible equipment into the Council Chambers including cellular telephones or pagers. Members of the public may not, except when testifying on or participating in an agenda item, enter the well area, which is the open area directly in front of the dais and extending outward from it to a line running between the points on the Clerk's desk and the podium nearest to the audience.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) Any person who disrupts the meeting shall be called to order by the Presiding Officer. Disruption shall include but not be limited to, blocking the audience or camera view of the proceedings. If such conduct continues, the Presiding Officer may request the Sergeant at Arms to remove the person from Council Chambers.

The Chief of Police or such member or members of the Police Department as he or she may designate, shall be Sergeant At Arms of the City Council and shall carry out all orders given by the Presiding Officer through the City Manager for the purpose of maintaining order at City Council meetings. Any Councilmember may move to require the Presiding Officer to enforce the rules, and the affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council shall require him or her to do so.

RULE 17. SEATING ORDER.

After each municipal election, the City Clerk shall determine City Council member seating order by drawing lots, with the exception of the Mayor Pro Tem, who shall be seated next to the Mayor.

RULE 18. ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE AND FAILURE TO VOTE.

Every Councilmember is entitled to vote unless disqualified by reason of aconflict of interest. A Councilmember who abstains from voting consents to the decision made by the voting Councilmembers.

RULE 19. VOTING PROCEDURE.

Any vote of the City Council, including a roll call vote, may be registered by the members answering “Yes” for an affirmative vote or “No” for a negative vote upon his or her name being called by the City Clerk. Voting order shall be based on seating order with each roll call vote beginning at alternating ends of the dais and the Mayor voting last.

RULE 20. DISQUALIFICATION FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Any Councilmember who is disqualified from voting on a particular matter by reason of a conflict of interest shall publicly state or have the Presiding Officer state the nature of such disqualification and shall leave the dais prior to Council consideration of DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) the matter. A Councilmember stating or having the Presiding Officer state such disqualification shall not be counted as part of a quorum and shall be considered absent for the purpose of determining the outcome of any vote on such matter.

RULE 21. TIE VOTE.

Tie votes shall be lost motions.

RULE 22. CHANGING VOTE.

The vote of a Councilmember may be changed only if he or she makes a timely request to do so immediately following the announcement of the vote by the City Clerk or the Presiding Officer and prior to the time that the next item in the order of business is taken up.

RULE 23. AGENDA MANAGEMENT.

At any time prior to the City Council taking up agenda items after the report back from Closed Session, any member of the City Council may make a motion for agenda management to reorder or combine agenda items. Such a motion shall require the votes of a majority of the Councilmembers present to pass. If such a motion is passed, the City Clerk shall call agenda items in accordance with the agenda as modified by the motion.

RULE 24. PROCEDURE ON AGENDA ITEMS REQUIRING A MOTION.

The following procedure shall be followed in connection with any Agenda item requiring a motion:
(a) City Clerk reads the title.
(b) Presiding Officer calls for a staff report.
(c) Councilmembers question City staff.
(d) City Council conducts Public hearing.
(e) City Council deliberates.
(f) A Councilmember makes a motion, another Councilmember seconds the DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) motion, and the Council debates it, with the maker of the motion having the opportunity to speak last.
(g) The Presiding Officer or City Clerk restates the motion. (h) The City Council votes on the motion.
(i) The Presiding Officer or City Clerk announces result.

RULE 25. PRESENCE OF CITY STAFF AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.

The City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney, or, in their absence, their authorized representatives, shall attend and be present during all City Council meetings and give necessary service and advice.

RULE 26. RECORD OF MEETINGS.

All public meetings of the City Council shall be recorded. The recording shall be made by the City Clerk and retained in accordance with the City’s record retention schedule. The use of other recording or television equipment is permitted so long as it is not disruptive of the meeting.

RULE 27. USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO COMMUNICATE DURING MEETINGS During City Council meetings, Councilmembers shall not use electronic communications of any type, including texts and emails, to communicate among themselves.

RULE 28. ADJOURNMENT
No new item, other than Public Input, shall be considered after 11:00p.m. unless consideration is approved by a two-thirds vote of the Councilmembers present.

RULE 29. CHARTER SECTION 615
In accordance with Charter Section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present at the meeting objects.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) RULE 30. INTERPRETATION AND MODIFICATION OF THESE RULES.

These rules shall be interpreted liberally in order to provide for the optimum in the free interchange of information and public debate without an unnecessary waste of time or duplication of effort. These rules may be amended by resolution.

RULE 31. FAILURE TO OBSERVE RULES OF ORDER.

These rules of order and procedures govern the conduct of City Council meetings.

These rules are intended to expedite the transaction of the business of the City Council in an orderly fashion and are deemed to be procedural only. Failure to strictly observe these rules shall not affect the jurisdiction of the City Council or invalidate any action taken at a meeting that otherwise conforms to law.

SECTION 2. Resolution Number 11418 (CCS) and all other resolutions adopting, amending, or relating to City Council Rules of Order, are hereby repealed in their entirety.

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

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) Adopted and approved this 21st day of June 2022.
__________________________
Sue Himmelrich, Mayor
I, Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 11427 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of the Santa Monica City Council held on the 21st day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Brock, Davis, De la Torre, Negrete, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C8A6F3-1813-405E-8CFE-088EC22A0C8D

5.C.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: R11427_Council Rules (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 5C public comment for 27 September 2022 CC meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
The purpose of public comment is to facilitate communication between residents and the City Council. In the case of item specific public comments, they allow Santa Monicans' direct input on agendized items to influence elected officials' subsequent deliberations.

Placing general public comment at the beginning of the agenda is a basic courtesy to residents and should be retained.

However, the rearrangement of item-specific public comments for this pilot was ill conceived and we're fortunate to be able to end its practice In December 2022.

Divorcing public item comments from respective items is a waste of everyone's time and effort. Removing the proximity of public comments from their respective items disenfranchises residents by minimizing the impact of their input on the conversation. It is equally unhelpful to overworked City Councilmembers who cannot possibly process and retain so much disjointed feedback out of the context of respective agenda items.

If it is not possible to end this latter practice immediately, I ask that you at least end it in December at the initially proposed pilot end date. Extending this ineffective and demoralizing practice to March 2023 is inappropriate and disrespectful to all involved in City governance—residents and elected officials alike.

Item 5.C
09/27/22
1 of 2 Item 5.C
09/27/22

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Written Comment (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) 2 Thank you,
Michelle Gray
Item 5.C
09/27/22
2 of 2 Item 5.C
09/27/22

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Written Comment (5345 : Extension of Council Public Input Pilot) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.D
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Joseph Cevetello, Chief Information Officer, Information Services Department, Infrastructure and Cloud Services
Subject: Approval of Second Modification with Insight Public Sector, Inc. for Microsoft Enterprise Agreement
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to agreement #10933 in the amount of $2,400,000 (including 10% contingency) with Insight Public Sector, Inc. for the purchase of Microsoft software licenses, including software license upgrades and license planning services for the Information Services Department. This will result in a 6-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $4,900,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Summary
The City of Santa Monica uses Microsoft software for office productivity tools and on all its computers and servers. The Information Services Department (ISD) manages the licensing for this software through an Enterprise Agreement (EA), purchased through Insight Public Sector, Inc. (Insight), one of many Microsoft Licensing Solutions Partners (resellers). Under the EA, Microsoft provides Software Assurance for all software purchases, which guarantees the City can access new product version rights, training, deployment planning, and support. The City’s current licensing agreement with Insight ends in October 2022. For this reason, staff seeks approval to modify its existing agreement with Insight Public Sector, Inc., at a fixed discounted rate for licenses, with the flexibility to add new products and services as needed.

5.D
Packet Pg. 84
2 of 5
Discussion
The Microsoft EA is a comprehensive volume licensing program designed for organizations like the City that have standardized on Microsoft technology. The Microsoft EA program is offered exclusively through authorized third-party resellers, such as Insight, and is not available directly through Microsoft.

Through the EA program, Microsoft offers substantial cost savings to government agencies over standard government license pricing over a multiyear period. The EA consolidates software purchases across the City while streamlining the software license management process. The EA provides Software Assurance, which provides Microsoft technologies and services including new product version rights, training, deployment planning, and support. The City currently purchases Microsoft licensing for all Windows computers and servers, which require an operating system, as well as user licensing to enable cloud-based office productivity software for City staff, allowing for secure, anywhere, anytime access to City applications in support of service delivery. Currently, the City has over 2,500 Microsoft subscription licenses assigned to staff, City Council, Boards and Commission members, as well as library public computers. These licenses are essential for city business continuity and will be renewed as part of this agreement.

Over the past five years, the City has increased its use of Microsoft products as a result of implementing various City initiatives, including providing email accounts to most members of City Boards and Commissions; deploying database software licenses for City applications requiring advanced database management; and enabling cloud-based services to all City staff to allow for anytime, anywhere, secure access to City applications.

Microsoft offers various tiers of licensing to accommodate employee role-based deployment. The City offers 4 types of licenses based on user needs. ISD has been leveraging this type of licensing to achieve cost savings by deploying licenses and functionality based on employees’ needs. Staff anticipates that licensing costs will continue to increase as Microsoft moves towards capability-based bundled pricing, which requires customers to purchase bundled packages in order to leverage unique

5.D
Packet Pg. 85
3 of 5
capabilities of Microsoft tools. To address this, ISD will continue to closely manage the City's licensing model, adjusting license levels to optimize savings and adopt industry best practices in license management and cost optimization practices.

Funding for this agreement and for all enterprise software license purchases has been set aside as part of the Computer Equipment Replacement Program (CERP) and is available in the Information Technology Replacement and Services Fund.

Vendor Selection
Exception to Competitive Bidding
Staff recommends Insight Public Sector, Inc. to furnish and provide Microsoft software licenses and services as an exception to competitive bidding per Muni Code 2.24.250(c). c. competitive procedures were followed by a governmental agency, federal, state, county, city, joint powers agency, special district, or cooperative purchasing agency and the goods or services are supplied to the City at the same or better price;
Vendor Justification
Based on the results of a competitive process in October 2019, the County of Riverside executed an agreement for Microsoft Enterprise Licenses with Insight Public Sector Inc., identified as Licensing Solution Provider (LSP) under Agreement # PSA-0001526, which was subsequently amended pursuant to Amendment #1. The City is now seeking approval to enter into a cooperative procurement contract with Insight Public Sector Inc.

Similar pricing is also offered to other government agencies in the State of California under cooperative purchase agreements. Many cities in California leverage this EA, as does the City of Santa Monica, to take advantage of the best pricing available for government agencies.

Under the EA, Microsoft requires all licenses governed by the agreement to be purchased through authorized Large Account Reseller (LAR) designated as part of the EA. Insight is one of six LARs who have entered into a Software Cooperative Agreement, which extends guaranteed pricing from the Riverside master EA to government agencies. Staff evaluated a contract under the California Department of Technology; however, Insight’s pricing was the most competitive for the City’s current licenses with Microsoft.

5.D
Packet Pg. 86
4 of 5
As part of this agreement, Insight will assist the City with quarterly planning and road map development for software licenses and services to maximize Return on Investment and ensure that the City is fully utilizing its investment in Microsoft tools.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
09/10/2019
(Attachment A)
Authorize agreement with PCMG (vendor was later acquired by Insight Public Sector Company, Inc.)
On September 10, 2019, City Council approved #10933 contract with PCMG in the amount of $2,500,000 for the purchase of Microsoft software licenses, including software license upgrades and license planning services for the Information Services Department. On March 30, 2020, the City processed a first modification of the agreement to reflect corporate restructuring from PCMG to Insight Public Sector Company. The current agreement expires on October 31, 2022; therefore, the City recommends modifying the agreement with a second modification to extend the contract.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Information Technology Replacement and Services Fund to amend the agreement with Insight Public Sector, Inc. for the purchase of Microsoft software licenses, including software license upgrades and license planning and tracking services. Funds for this purchase are available in the FY 2022-23 Capital Budget. Enterprise funds will reimburse the Information Technology Replacement and Services Fund to pay for their portion of licenses. Future year funding will be contingent on Council budget approval.

Contract Modification Request
Agreement
#
Contract
Authorized
Amount
FY2022-23
Modified
Request Amount
Future Years Dept/CIP
Account
Total Revised
Contract
Amount
10933 $2,500,000 $800,000 $1,600,000 C7100030.689000 $4,900,000

5.D
Packet Pg. 87
5 of 5
Prepared By: Sarkis Metspakyan, Systems & Network Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. PCMG_Contract_No._10933
B. 1st Modfication
C. Oaks_Initiative
D. dd

5.D
Packet Pg. 88
- 1 -
Contract No. 10933 (CCS)

AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE LICENSES, SOFTWARE

LICENSE UPGRADE, AND LICENSE TRACKING SERVICES
This Agreement for Purchase of Software Licenses, Software License Upgrade, and License Tracking Services (“Contract”), entered into as of _________________(“Execution Date”), by and between the CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a municipal corporation (“City”), and PCMG, Inc. (“PCMG”), is made with reference to the following:

RECITALS:

A. The City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City.

B. PCMG is qualified to do business, and is doing business, in the State of California.

PCMG represents it has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise necessary to provide the licenses, license upgrades, and services set forth in this Contract.

C. On October 22, 2019, PCMG was awarded Agreement#PSA-0001527 with the County of Riverside incorporating all of the terms, conditions and specifications of Request for Quotations #RIVCO-2020-RFQ-0000048 (the "RFQ") to act as a Licensing Solution Provider ("LSP") for the provision of Microsoft Enterprise license subscription and support services for multiple governmental agencies ("Riverside Contract"). The Riverside Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Riverside Contract, PCMG provides LSP services.

D. The City seeks to purchase, and PCMG agrees to provide, Microsoft software licenses, software license upgrades and license tracking services pursuant to the Riverside Contract in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Term. This Agreement begins on November 1, 2019 and terminates on October 31, 2022, unless sooner terminated in accordance with Section 14.

1.1. Guaranteed Term Pricing. Notwithstanding that the Riverside Contract currently expires on October 31, 2021, PCMG represents and warrants that the pricing structure in Exhibit B will remain the same during the entire Term.

2. PCMG Services. PCMG shall provide all of the Microsoft software licenses, software licenses upgrades as selected by the City, license tracking services, and support services (including, Microsoft Enterprise license subscription services and License Support DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F 11/18/2019

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) - 2 -
Provider service) in accordance with the rates in the Riverside Contract as set forth in Exhibit B. In addition, PCMG will provide the services set forth in Scope of Services attached as Exhibit C. The services identified in Exhibits B and C shall collectively be referred to as the “Services.”

3. City Services. The City agrees to:

3.1 Make available to PCMG any currently existing documents, data or information required for the performance of the Services.

3.2 Designate a representative authorized to act on behalf of City.

3.3 Promptly examine and render findings on all documents submitted for staff review by PCMG.

4. Compensation. The total compensation to PCMG for all licenses and Services shall not exceed $2,330,053.74, as set forth in Exhibit B.

5. Invoices. PCMG will invoice the City for the Services in accordance with Exhibit B and the City will pay any undisputed amount within 30 days of receipt.

6. Notices. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement, must be in writing and will be deemed served when delivered personally, by email, or on the third business day after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as follows:

6.1 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to the City:

Information Services Department
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 105
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attention: Joseph Cevetello, Chief Information Officer
Re: Contract No. 10933 (CCS)
with a copy to:

Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office
1685 Main Street, Third Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attention: City Attorney
Re: Contract No. 10933 (CCS)

6.2 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to PCMG:

PCMG
13755 Sunrise Valley Dr., Ste. 750
Herndon, VA 20171-4608
Attention: Sharon O. Ennis, Sr. Vice President
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) - 3 -
[email protected]
Re: Contract No. 10933 (CCS)

7. Independent Parties. Both parties to this Agreement will be acting in an independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers of one another.

Neither the City nor its officers or employees will have any control over the conduct of PCMG or any of PCMG’s agents, employees, or subconsultants, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.

8. Integrated Contract. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties. Any preliminary negotiations and agreements of any kind or nature are merged into this Agreement. No oral agreement or implied covenant may be held to vary the provisions of this Agreement.

This Agreement may be modified only by written agreement signed by City and PCMG, and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

9. Insurance. Insurance Requirements and Verifications have been waived by a mutual agreement between the PCMG and City.

10. Defense and Indemnification.

10.1 PCMG agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, boards and commissions, and employees (collectively, “City”) from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, or costs, including but not limited to attorney’s fees, or payments for injury to any person or property (collectively, “Losses”) caused or claimed to be caused by the act, errors, and/or omissions of PCMG, or PCMG’s employees, agents, officers, and subconsultants. PCMG’s responsibilities under this Section 10.1 include liability arising from, connected with, caused by, or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, which may be in combination with the acts or omissions of PCMG, its employees, agents or officers, or subconsultants; provided, however, that PCMG’s duty to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless shall not include any Losses arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

Notwithstanding PCMG’s obligation to defend City hereunder, City has the right to conduct its own defense and seek reimbursement for reasonable costs of defense from PCMG, if City chooses to do so.

10.2 Enforcement Costs. PCMG agrees to pay any and all costs the City incurs enforcing the indemnity, defense and hold harmless provisions set forth in Section 10.1.

11. Prohibition Against Transfers.

11.1PCMG may not assign, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without the City’s consent will be DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) - 4 -
null and void, and any assignee, hypothecatee or transferee acquires no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.

11.1 The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of PCMG or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of PCMG, if a partnership or joint venture or syndicate exists, which results in changing the control of PCMG, will be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means 50% or more of the voting power of the corporation.

12. Permits and Licenses. PCMG, at its sole expense, must obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement all required business and professional permits, licenses and certificates.

13. Waiver. A waiver of any breach of this Agreement may not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement.

14. Default and Termination.

14.1 If PCMG fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, and if the default is not cured within a period of five days after the City’s written notice of default specifying the nature of the default, City may immediately terminate this Agreement by written notice to PCMG.

14.2 The City has the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving ten days’ written notice to PCMG. Upon termination of this Agreement, City will pay PCMG any compensation earned and unpaid up to the effective date of termination.

15. Compliance with Law. PCMG must comply with all laws of the State of California and the United States, and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City.

16. Discrimination. PCMG may not discriminate in the provision of services hereunder because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation, marital status, AIDS or disability.

17. Nuisance. PCMG may not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.

18. Records.

18.1 PCMG must maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City for any services provided where compensation is on the basis of hourly rates, subconsultant costs, or other direct costs. PCMG must keep the records, together with supporting documents, separate from other documents and DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) - 5 -
records and maintain them for a period of three years after receipt of final payment.

18.2 PCMG must maintain records in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of the Services and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

PCMG must clearly identify all records and make them readily accessible to the City. At the City’s request, PCMG must provide records in an electronic format and, if necessary, access to any proprietary software to view such electronic records.

19. PCMG must allow the City to have free access to PCMG’s books and records and to inspect all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. The City has the right to examine or audit PCMG’s records, and PCMG agrees to cooperate with any examination or audit of its records. Work Product; Reports.

19.1 Any work product prepared or caused to be prepared by PCMG or any subconsultant for this Agreement will be the exclusive property of City. No work product given to or prepared by PCMG or any subconsultant pursuant to this Agreement may be made available to any individual or organization by PCMG without prior written approval by City.

19.2 At the City’s request, PCMG must furnish reports concerning the status of the Services.

20. Standard of Care. PCMG agrees to provide all Services, including services performed by any subconsultant, in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of PCMG’s profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions.

21. Subconsultants.

21.1 If PCMG proposes to have any subconsultant perform any part of the Services, PCMG must submit a request for approval in writing, describing the scope of work to be subcontracted, the name of the proposed subconsultant, and the total price or hourly rates used in preparing an estimated cost for the subconsultant’s services. The City, in its sole discretion, may grant or deny the request.

21.2 PCMG will be responsible for the quality of any subconsultant’s work. Every subcontract or agreement of any kind entered into between PCMG and any subconsultant (or between any subconsultant and others) must contain the following provision:

This agreement is consistent with all terms and conditions of the Agreement No. 10933 (CCS) entered into between the City of Santa Monica and PCMG on^^____________________.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F 11/18/2019

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) - 6 -

22. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California, without regard to any choice of law provisions, will govern this Agreement.

23. Venue and Jurisdiction. The City and PCMG agree that the Services will take place in Los Angeles County. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement may only be brought in either the United States District Court, Central District of California, or the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, West District, as appropriate.

The parties agree that venue exists in either court, and each party expressly waives any right to transfer to another venue. The parties further agree that either court will have personal jurisdiction over the parties to this Agreement.

24. Survival of Provisions and Obligations. Any provision of this Agreement, which by its nature must be exercised after termination of this Agreement, will survive termination and remain effective for a reasonable time. Any obligation that accrued prior to termination of this Agreement will survive termination of this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) - 7 -

25. Exhibits. The following exhibits are incorporated by reference into this Contract as though fully set forth herein.

Exhibit A Riverside Contract
Exhibit B Budget
Exhibit C Scope of Services
In witness whereof, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.

ATTEST:
______________________________

DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________

LANE DILG
City Attorney

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a municipal corporation
By: ______________________________

RICK COLE
City Manager
PCMG Corporation
#VENDOR
By: ________________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F City Attorney
Lane Dilg
11/13/2019
SVP
Sharon O. Ennis
11/13/2019
PCMG, Inc.

Rick Cole
City Manager
11/18/2019
City Clerk
Denise Anderson-Warren
11/19/2019

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) Exhibit A
Riverside Contract
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) Exhibit B
Budget
The total compensation under this Agreement shall not exceed $2,330,053.74 for all licenses and Services, as included in the three quotes below.

Quote#1
Quote#2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) Quote#3
In addition, Microsoft sets, and periodically revises, uniform volume license subscription prices (ranging from level A (highest cost) to level D (lowest cost)) based on the number of computers and other criteria. PCMG agrees to provide additional licenses as required by the City during the term of the agreement at the following rates:

Microsoft Enterprise license subscription and services rates Line Description Price Level Markup%
1 Enterprise Online Services** (including Full USLs, From SA USLs, Add-ons and Step Ups) M365 E3 and ES, Enterprise Mobility+ Security E3 and ES, Office 365 Enterprise El or E3, Windows 10 Enterprise E3 or ES.

Level D
Minus
2%
0 2 Enterprise Products Office 365 Pro Plus, Windows 10 Enterprise, Core CAL Suite, Enterprise CAL Suite. Level D 0
3 Additional Products M365 Fl, M365 ES Compliance, M365 ES Security, Office 365 Enterprise F1, Project Online, Visio Online Plan 1 or Plan 2, Dynamics 365, Azure, SOL Server, Windows Server, etc.

Level D 0
4 Server and Tools Product (applies to Server and Cloud Enrollments only) SharePoint Server, SQL Server, BizTalk Server, Visual Studio, Core Infrastructure Suites, etc.

Level D 0
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) Exhibit C
Scope of Services
Contractor will work with staff in the Information Services Department.

The scope of work for this agreement includes but is not limited to:

1. Obtain contract pricing for Microsoft software products as per this Agreement.

2. Manage volume license agreements with Microsoft.

3. PCMG shall provide pre-sale support, purchase fulfillment support, and postsales support.

4. Per this agreement, Microsoft is responsible for providing download services for software version upgrades to customers.

5. Microsoft provides technical support directly to its users.

6. At the request of the City of Santa Monica, PCMG shall provide purchase history reports to the City.

7. Reports may be requested semiannually unless otherwise agreed to by PCMG.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1653F4-DD2C-4B0D-92B7-68A09032928F

5.D.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: PCMG_Contract_No._10933 (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) 1 FIRST MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT NO. 10933 (CCS)
This First Modification of Agreement Number 10933 (CCS) (“First Modification”), entered into as of _________________(“Execution Date”), by and between the City of Santa Monica, a municipal corporation (“City”), and PCMG, Inc. (“PCMG”) is made with reference to the following:

RECITALS
A. On or about November 18, 2019, the City and PCMG entered into Agreement Number 10933 (CCS) for the provision of Microsoft Enterprise license subscription and support services (“Original Agreement”).

B. On March 30,2020, PCMG, through its parent company Insight Enterprise, Inc. requested an assignment of the Original Agreement (the “Proposed Assignment”) from PCMG to Insight Public Sector, Inc. to reflect a corporate restructuring.

C. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Original Agreement, the City and PCMG desire to modify the Original Agreement to reflect the City’s consent to the Proposed Assignment.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Now, therefore, the undersigned parties do hereby mutually agree to modify the Original Agreement as follows:

1. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Original Agreement, the City consents to PCMG’s Proposed Assignment of all of PCMG’s obligations under the Original Agreement to Insight Public Sector, Inc. as of the Execution Date above.

2. Any and all references in the Original Agreement to “PCMG, Inc.” shall be updated to “Insight Public Sector, Inc.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3237AC6E-EC4A-447F-8505-9AD85436CEE3 5/14/2020

5.D.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 1st Modfication (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) 2 3. Except as expressly modified by this First Modification, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Modification as of the date and year first written above.

ATTEST:
______________________________

DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a municipal corporation
By: ______________________________
Lane Dilg
Interim City Manager
By: _______________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3237AC6E-EC4A-447F-8505-9AD85436CEE3 George S. Cardona
Acting City Attorney
4/27/2020
Assistant Secretary
4/28/2020
Insight Public Sector, Inc.

Lisanne Steinheiser
City Attorney
Lane Dilg
5/14/2020
City Clerk
Denise Anderson-Warren
5/15/2020

5.D.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 1st Modfication (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement)

5.D.c
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Oaks_Initiative [Revision 1] (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement)

5.D.c
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Oaks_Initiative [Revision 1] (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement)

5.D.c
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Oaks_Initiative [Revision 1] (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement)

5.D.d
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: dd [Revision 1] (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement)

5.D.d
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: dd [Revision 1] (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement)

5.D.d
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: dd [Revision 1] (5346 : Second Modification- Insight Public Sector, Inc. for EA Agreement) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.E
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David White, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Approval to Accept State Homeland Security grant funds to provide a countywide, emergency management training program serving all Santa Monica staff, all Operational Area cities, County departments, and special districts within the County of Los Angeles for the reporting period 2022 through 2025.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

Summary
Staff seeks Council authorization to accept two federal grants from the federal Department of Homeland Security – Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by way of the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) for performance period beginning in 2022 and concluding in 2025, totaling $565,000. Grant funds will be utilized to fund an emergency management training program for local emergency management

5.E
Packet Pg. 140
2 of 4
professionals and supporting staff members throughout the County of Los Angeles.

Grant funds will be utilized to hire a contractor to implement a countywide project to improve emergency management training throughout the region and establish baseline training for City of Santa Monica staff and partners throughout the county.

Discussion
To meet the State’s grant requirements, the 88 cities, special districts, and LA County departments established a SHSGP Approval Authority comprised of representatives elected from member agencies. The approval authority is comprised of public sector personnel from various law enforcement, fire, public health, emergency management, and emergency medical services agencies throughout the County. The Approval Authority is charged with reviewing eligible projects submitted to the governing body and approving regional projects based upon regional necessity, gaps in readiness, and national security priorities. After review of eligible projects, the Approval Authority votes to fund projects which support regional priorities.

On behalf of the emergency management discipline within the County, Disaster Management Area Coordinators (DMACs), who represent the discipline throughout the 88 cities (Santa Monica serving as the coordinator of Area A), develop and submit regional projects to the Approval Authority to improve the region’s emergency response capacity. In 2022 the DMACs resubmitted an existing project – Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Training Cadre – which had been approved by the committee in 2019 to continue from 2022 through 2025. The Approval Authority approved the EOC training project to support the unified development of emergency response personnel and emergency support staff in the County.

The EOC training program supports staff development and continuity of operations by using an “All Hazards” approach to teach emergency management at the local level.

The EOC training project will increase the City’s and regional partner’s alignment with the Federal - National Incident Management System (NIMS) and State - Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) core capabilities. Developing emergency response staff capacity to support law enforcement, fire, medical, public works, and

5.E
Packet Pg. 141
3 of 4
critical infrastructure emergency field responses. This program will additionally result in Santa Monica, along with regional cities and special districts, fulfilling federal and state emergency training requirements while specifically increasing the emergency response capabilities of City staff in Santa Monica who are new to the organization and have not received EOC training.

In a brief overview of the proposed project sent to the Approval Authority, the EOC Training Cadre program is designed to improve incident management capabilities and response coordination throughout the region. Disaster Management Area Coordinators from all member agencies sought this program to ensure new and existing staff were able to have State-approved, cost-effective, and local training available to the government partners specific to emergency management.

Grant funds will be utilized to hire a consultant and instructors who will develop and deliver CalOES-certified courses in emergency management. Courses will be delivered to cover emergency planning, logistics, finances, management, public information, and action planning. Courses will be held in Santa Monica along with additional sites throughout the county of Los Angeles Operational Area.

Once approved by the SHSGP Approval Authority, the DMACs sought a member agency to serve as the fiscal agent due to the project being proposed by a coalition of cities. The City of Santa Monica was requested to support the grant as the fiscal agent due to City staff being familiar with the grant program and subject matter experts on the design and intent of the regional program. Upon acceptance of the grant funds, Santa Monica, will serve as the fiscal agent for the grant and the associated training program will support all 88 participating cities, special districts, and County departments across Los Angeles county. Cities serving as the fiscal agent for the Homeland Security Grants have received one-hundred percent reimbursement from FEMA due to the strict documentation conducted by City staff and regional partners. In exchange for serving as the fiscal agent for the grants, the City will be authorized to recover costs associated with existing staff time and ancillary costs incurred by the City. Staff are approved to recover up to ten percent of the total grant cost over the performance period.

5.E
Packet Pg. 142
4 of 4
Throughout the County, partner agencies have embraced the training model by supporting the delivery of critical training to over one-thousand public employees over the last three years. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, additional access to staff training has been requested by regional partners and staff within the Santa Monica Office of Emergency Management have been a strong proponent of EOC training for the westside partner agencies.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to accept two Department of Homeland Security Grants, by way of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Upon acceptance, Staff recommends the following budget changes. If renewals are awarded, budget changes will be included in subsequent year budgets, contingent on Council budget approval.

FY 2022-23 Grant Budget Changes
Establish Revenue Budget Appropriate Funds
Account Number(s) Amount Account Number(s) Amount
20200002.410800 $565,000 20200002.555510 $565,000
Total $565,000 Total $565,000
Prepared By: Steven Torrence, Emergency Services Administrator Approved Forwarded to Council

5.E
Packet Pg. 143
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.F
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Lori Gentles, Chief People Officer, Human Resources Department Lori Gentles, Chief People Officer, Human Resources Department Subject: Adoption of Salary Resolution
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Salary Resolution to establish a title change for an existing job classification and salary rates for various job classifications described herein.

Summary
On June 28, 2022, the second year of the FY 2021-23 biennial budget was adopted.

Included in the budget was the establishment of salaries for new classifications being added to the budget as well as existing classifications. Subsequent to adoption of the budget, it was determined that a title change to a newly added classification was required to better distinguish such classification in the classification plan. Additionally, staff identified several classifications whose hourly rates should be adjusted and aligned to both the local Minimum or Living wages.

Discussion
As part of the second year of the FY 2021-23 biennial budget adoption, Council approved the deletion of Public Information Coordinator and the addition of Public Information Manager, which is a new classification. Following budget adoption, staff learned that the Public Information Manager title was duplicative of an existing title within the Rent Control Department. Consequently, staff recommends a title change of Public Information Manager to Communication and Public Information Manager. There

5.F
Packet Pg. 144
2 of 3
is no change to the current salary; therefore, there is no budget impact associated with this change.

Staff is also recommending an increase to the hourly rates of three classifications to the local Minimum Wage. Santa Monica’s local ordinance requires that City of Santa Monica employers must comply with the Minimum Wage. While the City as a government employer is not subject to this ordinance, Council has historically approved the recommendation to increase the wages for City job classifications that are below the local Minimum Wage. The hourly rate increases each year according to the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) each July 1, and the hourly rate is currently $15.96 effective July 1, 2022. The impacted classifications are Junior Pool Lifeguard, Student Worker, and Video Student Intern. These classifications are identified for student employees and are unrepresented.

Similarly, the Living Wage Ordinance applies to City vendors and sets a minimum wage for their employees. The Living Wage is currently $18.17 per hour and like the Minimum Wage, is adjusted each July 1 based on the previous year’s change (January to January) in CPI. Staff has identified additional classifications that are represented by a bargaining unit whose salaries have fallen below the City’s local living wage and which were not included in the salary resolution presented to Council on June 28, 2022.

The two classifications impacted are Recycling Assistant and Trades Intern.

Staff is recommending an equity increase to the classification of Motor Coach Operator Trainee. The Motor Coach Operator classification recently received a 7% increase and staff is seeking a commensurate increase which will also assist in the City’s ongoing recruitment issues. The proposed resolution also establishes the classification title and associated salary of Firefighter - Prevention (Lateral Transfer). This “classification” is the equivalent to Firefighter – Prevention with regard to assigned duties but accounts for the different manner in which employees are recruited into the classification.

Past Council Actions
June 28, 2022 Adoption of the Second Year of the FY 2021-23 Biennial Budget, Adoption of the First Year and Approval of the
Second Year of the FY 2022-24 Biennial Capital
Improvement Program Budget

5.F
Packet Pg. 145
3 of 3
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action in this report. The fiscal impact on salaries for the classifications identified in this report will be absorbed within existing budgets. Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

Prepared By: Ericka Reinke, Senior HR Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment B (Position Change Summary for 9 27 2022) B. Attachment A - Salary Resolution 9.27.2022

5.F
Packet Pg. 146

POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
Attachment B

FUND DEPT FTE POSITION TITLE FUND DEPT FTE POSITION TITLE 01 CMO 1.0 Public Information Manager 01 CMO 1.0 Communications and Public Information Manager 1
Title Change -

DELETE ADD

REASON NET FTE
CHANGE
1 Position change has no net impact to the budget.

September 27, 2022

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment B (Position Change Summary for 9 27 2022) (5354 : Salary Resolution)

ATTACHMENT A
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

ESTABLISHING NEW CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADOPTING SALARY RATES FOR THE FOLLOWING NEW OR EXISTING CLASSIFICATIONS: COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION MANAGER, FIREFIGHTER – PREVENTION (LATERAL

TRANSFER), JUNIOR POOL LIFEGUARD, MOTOR COACH OPERATOR TRAINEE,

RECYCLING ASSISTANT, STUDENT WORKER, TRADES INTERN, AND VIDEO

STUDENT INTERN

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

SECTION 1. The following salary levels are hereby established, effective July 3, 2022, for the indicated classifications:

Classification Salary Reason
Communications and Public
Information Manager
$169,812.00/annual Change of Existing
Classification Title
Junior Pool Lifeguard $15.96/hour Align with Minimum Wage Recycling Assistant $18.17/hour Align with Living Wage
Student Worker $15.96/hour Align with Minimum Wage
Trades Intern $18.17/hour Align with Living Wage
Video Student Intern $15.96/hour Align with Minimum Wage SECTION 2. The following salary level is hereby established, effective July 3, 2022, for the indicated classification:

Classification Salary Reason
Firefighter - Prevention (Lateral
Transfer) (effective January 2,
2022)
$116,028.00/annual New Classification
SECTION 3. The following salary level is hereby established, effective August 28, 2022, for the indicated classification:

Classification Salary Reason
Motor Coach Operator Trainee $19.06/hour Equity

5.F.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment A - Salary Resolution 9.27.2022 (5354 : Salary Resolution)

ATTACHMENT A
SECTION 4. 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 T. SLOAN
City Attorney

5.F.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment A - Salary Resolution 9.27.2022 (5354 : Salary Resolution) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.G
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Joseph Cevetello, Chief Information Officer, Information Services Department, Infrastructure and Cloud Services
Subject: Approval of a Purchase Order for the use Amazon Web Services (AWS) Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City to issue a purchase order with DLT Solutions, a Tech Data Company, for Amazon Web Services (AWS) for the Information Services Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250(c) and is for a total amount not to exceed $1,237,500 (including a 10% contingency of $112,500), over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Summary
The Information Services Department (ISD) uses Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud services for hosting the City’s business systems in the cloud. As part of its “Cloud First Strategy,” ISD has transitioned a portion of the City’s servers from an on-premises datacenter to AWS. Over the past two years, as the transition has progressed, the use of cloud-hosted servers and services has increased. ISD anticipates this growth to continue over the next five years. Staff seeks approval to enter into a new multi-year purchase agreement with authorized reseller of AWS cloud services, DLT Solutions (DLT).

Discussion
ISD has initiated a “Cloud First Strategy” for its Information Technology infrastructure to achieve greater agility, lower cost, and increased resiliency. As part of this initiative, the City selected AWS as its cloud service provider. AWS offers a tremendous flexibility

5.G
Packet Pg. 150
2 of 3
and potential cost savings for hosting data center applications and infrastructure ondemand. In a traditional on-premises data center environment, the City invests in data center equipment, software licensing, facility power & cooling, annual hardware/software maintenance, and staff costs. There are also fixed capital expenditures that the City must pay upfront.

In the AWS cloud environment, the City pays monthly for only the computing resources that it consumes and reduces the City’s expenditures on information technology infrastructure. The AWS cloud environment allows for quick and simple expansion or reduction of computing services and includes integrated disaster recovery. Additionally, cloud-based computing allows the City to modernize business applications and infrastructure, enabling the adoption of newer, more modern technologies that in turn support an improved customer experience to the community through improvements to the website, 311 system and other citizen facing applications.

At this time, only 10% the City’s servers are hosted in AWS. This number is expected to grow as departments modernize their business systems and formulate plans to replace legacy applications. AWS is the largest, most reliable cloud service provider in the industry. To fully implement and establish the City’s AWS environment and to leverage economies of scale pricing for AWS cloud services, ISD must procure services through an AWS government reseller, such as DLT Solutions.

Vendor Selection
Exception to Competitive Bidding
Staff recommends DLT Solutions to furnish and deliver/provide AWS cloud services as an exception to competitive bidding per Muni Code 2.24.250 (c): competitive procedures were followed by a governmental agency, federal, state, county, city, joint powers agency, special district, or cooperative purchasing agency and the goods or services are supplied to the City at the same or better price.

In 2019, Region 4 Education Service Center (a conglomerate of 47 public and 40 charter schools covering seven-county areas in Texas) conducted a competitive process through the Omnia Partners, Public Sector Purchasing Alliance, for technology products, services, solutions, and related products.

Contract # R190902 was awarded to DLT Solutions to provide AWS cloud services, including, training, archiving, data processing, warehousing, storage, infrastructure services, and support services. Region 4 Education Service Center has partnered with OMNIA partners make this solicitation available to other public agencies nationally, including state and local governmental entities, public and private primary, secondary and higher education entities, non-profit entities, and agencies for the public benefit. The City of Santa Monica will piggyback on this contract which offers the most competitive pricing for AWS

5.G
Packet Pg. 151
3 of 3
services.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Information Technology Replacement and Services Fund to award a purchase order with DLT for AWS cloud services. The current proposal from DLT Solutions is for a total amount not to exceed $1,237,500 for 5 years. Future year funding will be contingent on Council budget approval. Funds for this purchase are available in the FY 2022-23 Capital Budget. Enterprise funds will reimburse the General Fund to pay for their portion of AWS hosting.

Purchase Order Request
FY 2022-23 Budget
Request Amount Future Years CIP Account # Total Contract Amount $222,500 $1,015,000 C7100030.689000 $1,237,500
Prepared By: Sarkis Metspakyan, Systems & Network Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. OAKS INITIATIVE FORM_FE_v1
B. OAKS INITIATIVE FORM_FE_v2

5.G
Packet Pg. 152

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

OR OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica’s voters adopted a City Charter amendment commonly known as the Oaks Initiative. The Oaks Initiative requires the City to provide this notice and information about the Initiative’s requirements. You may obtain a full copy of the Initiative’s text from the City Clerk.

This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.

It prohibits a public official from receiving, and a person or entity from conferring, specified personal benefits or campaign advantages from a person or entity after theofficial votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a “public benefit” to that person or entity. The prohibition applies within and outside of the geographical boundaries of SantaMonica.

All persons or entities applying or receiving public benefits from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners, and officers, and names of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. An exception exists for persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6), of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception does not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees.

Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.

In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, theCity compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any personorpersons whois seekinga“publicbenefit.” Ifthe“public benefit” is sought by an entity, ratherthan an individual person, the information includes the nameof everyperson who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity. Therefore, if you are seeking a “public benefit” covered by the Oaks Initiative, you must supply that information on the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form. This information must be updated and supplied every 12 months.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6795524-3CF7-409F-AB3A-E3E367097B99

5.G.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM_FE_v1 (5335 : AWS Cloud Services)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

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

Public benefits include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prepared by: Title:

Signature: Date:

Email: Phone:

Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract #
Tech Data Corporation
Elizabeth White
[email protected] 800-262-4358
8/29/22
Assistant Secretary
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6795524-3CF7-409F-AB3A-E3E367097B99 None.

Eddie Franklin – President
Staci Patel – Secretary
Elizabeth White – Assistant Secretary
Reyna Thompson – Senior Vice President
Scott Walker – Corporate Vice President, Treasurer

5.G.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM_FE_v1 (5335 : AWS Cloud Services)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.

Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6795524-3CF7-409F-AB3A-E3E367097B99

5.G.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM_FE_v2 (5335 : AWS Cloud Services)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Public benefits include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prepared by: Title:

Signature: Date:

Email: Phone:

Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract #
Tech Data Corporation
Elizabeth White
[email protected] 800-262-4358
8/29/22
Assistant Secretary
DLT Solutions, LLC, a Company
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6795524-3CF7-409F-AB3A-E3E367097B99 None.

Eddie Franklin – President
Staci Patel – Secretary
Elizabeth White – Assistant Secretary
Reyna Thompson – Senior Vice President
Scott Walker – Corporate Vice President, Treasurer

5.G.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM_FE_v2 (5335 : AWS Cloud Services) 1 September 13, 2022
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 5:34 p.m., on Tuesday, September 13, 2022, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Lana Negrete (arrived at 5:48 p.m.)
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: City Manager David White
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:34 p.m., with all members present except Councilmember Negrete. Councilmember de la Torre led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to allow the presentation of Proclamations before hearing public comment.

The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, by all members present.

GENERAL PUBLIC
INPUT:

Councilmember Negrete
arrived at 5:48 p.m.

Members of the public Debbie Merrill, Barbara Tenzer, Kayla Smith, Lucian Tudor, Toro Toyokawa, Luke Cain, Natalie, Alex Stan, Luca Maita, Nick Carrillo, Paul Crowson, Rico Cisneros, Barbara Klein, Boris Pesin, Julian Martinez, Jonathan Foster, Vera, John Alle (time donated by Adnan Safadi), David, Cristian Ortiz, Carlos Orozco, Brian Bornemann, Molly G., Charles Craig, Dana Semien, David Morris, Brian Reinhart, Andria, and Nino Kuraica commented on various local issues.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

SPECIAL AGENDA

ITEMS AND CONSENT
CALENDAR ONLY:

Members of the public Ann Thanawalla and Denise Barton commented on special agenda items.

There were no members of the public present to comment on consent calendar items.

5.H
Packet Pg. 157 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 September 13, 2022

PROCLAMATIONS/

COMMENDATIONS

4.A. Proclamation: Suicide Prevention Month, was presented.

4.B. Proclamation declaring September 18-24, 2022 as Banned Books Week, was presented.

4.C. Proclamation declaring September 2022 as Hispanic Heritage Month, was presented.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to suspend Council Rules to allow the Housing Commission 15 minutes for their presentation on Item 7.A., and to accept public comment on this item, after the staff report, Housing Commission presentation, and questions of staff are given. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, by all members present.

RECESS On order of the Mayor, the City Council took a recess at 7:07 p.m., and reconvened at 7:37 p.m., with all members present, except Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre, and Negrete.

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS:

Councilmembers Brock,
de la Torre, and Negrete
returned at 7:40 p.m.

4.D. City Manager Report, was presented.

REPORT ON COUNCIL
TRAVEL
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan reported that she traveled to Brighton, England, which was paid for by Santa Monica Travel and Tourism as part of a Sister City event. It was the first reopening of travel post-COVID. It was a way to cement the relationship between the cities. There was representation from the Pier, SMTT, and the Council where they signed a friendship agreement of support.

Councilmember Brock reported that he traveled to Long Beach for the League of CA Cities Annual Meeting, where he attended seminars, including hearing about other cities who have established youth commissions, discussions on homelessness, and received a Torch Award from the League.

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

At the request of Councilmember Brock, Item 5.A. was removed from the Consent Calendar.

At the request of Mayor Himmelrich, Item 5.E. was removed from the

5.H
Packet Pg. 158 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 September 13, 2022
Consent Calendar.

At the request of Councilmember Parra, Item 5.F was removed from the Consent Calendar.

Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Items 5.A. 5.E. and 5.F., reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
FLEET MAINTENANCE 5.B. Modification of Contract to Provide Fleet Vehicle Maintenance Data Collection and Analytics, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a sixth modification to agreement #9508 in the amount of $323,301 with Trapeze Software Group to furnish, deliver, and install additional Vehicle Data Collectors to replace obsolete equipment at the Department of Transportation’s fueling facility and to allow for automatic collection of vehicle mileage data. This modification would also extend the software maintenance contract of the Enterprise Asset Module (EAM) for tracking maintenance work orders, warehouse inventory management, fueling controls, and maintenance management functions from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2025. This will result in a thirteen-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $1,940,320, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

LABOR RELATIONS 5.C. Adoption of Resolution No. 11459 (CCS) entitled “A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MONICA ACCEPTING THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM ASSOCIATES” and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute Memorandum of Understanding No. 11312 (CCS) with the Administrative Team Associates (ATA), was approved and adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the proposed Resolution (Attachment A) accepting the tentative agreement and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate

5.H
Packet Pg. 159 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 September 13, 2022
and execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Administrative Team Associates (ATA);

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

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

BENEFITS 5.D. Approval of Professional Services Agreement No. 11313 (CCS) for Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) valuation services to MacLeod Watts, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award RFP 318 to MacLeod Watts Inc, a Washington state-based corporation, to provide consulting services in connection with valuing the City’s OPEB liability for use in the City’s financial reporting and calculate the City’s Actuarially Determined Contribution;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with MacLeod Watts, in an amount not to exceed $108,010 for eight years.

MAIN STREET

OCTOBER FESTIVAL

5.G. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding No. 11314 (CCS) for the 2022 Open Main Street October Festival and Adoption of Resolution No. 11460 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AUTHORIZING THE

DIRECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO

CLOSE PORTIONS OF MAIN STREET FOR OPEN MAIN STREET,
OCTOBERFEST”, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Main Street Business Improvement Association for the City to co-produce a one-day open streets event called Open Main Street October Fest.

2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Community Services Director to close for one-day an approximate half-mile portion of Main Street for the Open Main Street October Fest event so as to comply with the State of California Vehicle Code.

CONFLICT OF

INTEREST

5.H. 2022 Biennial Notice of Review of the City's Conflict of Interest Code, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council, by Motion, receive and file the Fair Political Practices Commission 2022 Local Agency Biennial Notice advising that the city’s Conflict of Interest Code is currently under review.

5.H
Packet Pg. 160 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 September 13, 2022
TELECONFERENCING 5.I. AB 361 Findings Regarding Teleconference Meetings, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 11461 (CCS) making the findings required by AB 361 to continue teleconference meetings of the City Council and City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces through October 24, 2022.

COVID-19

PROCLAMATION

5.J. Adoption of Resolution No. 11462 (CCS) entitled “AN

EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE SANTA

MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF

EXISTENCE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
AND SUPPLEMENTAL PROCLAMATIONS THERETO”, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Approve resolution ratifying the Executive Order issued by the Director of Emergency Services declaring the existence of a local emergency in the City of Santa Monica and the Supplements to that Order.

CITY MANAGER
TRAVEL

5.K. Accept Funding from Southern California Grantmakers for the City Manager David White to participate in a Study Trip on Houston’s Approach to Addressing Homelessness, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize acceptance of payment from Southern California Grantmakers for the City Manager to travel to Houston, Texas, for a study trip on Houston’s approach to addressing homelessness and determine that the City Manager will make use of the payment to reimburse the City for costs associated with the trip.

MINUTES 5.L. City Council Minutes - Special Meeting - June 21, 2022, were approved.

IT OPERATIONS 5.A. Award Network Operation Center and Application Monitoring Contract No. 11315 (CCS), was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award RFP # 319-A to Mosaic451, LLC for 24x7 Network Operation Center and Application Monitoring for City IT infrastructure operations.

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Mosaic451, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $2,010,000

5.H
Packet Pg. 161 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 September 13, 2022
(including 5% contingency) for five (5) years, with one additional five (5)-year renewal option in the amount of $2,345,000, on the same terms and conditions, for a total amount not to exceed $4,355,000 over a ten-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Councilmember Brock stated that he pulled this item to state that the city should have free internet for all residents and expressed concern that this agreement is only for large money users, that internet should be considered a basic utility.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to approve the recommended action. The motion was approved by the following vote:

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

CDBG/HOME ACTION
PLAN

5.E. Approval of Amended 2021-22 Annual CDBG and HOME
Action Plan Incorporating Proposed HOME Investment Partnerships – American Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) Allocation Plan, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve amendment of the 2021-22 Annual CDBG and HOME Action Plan to incorporate the proposed HOME Investment Partnerships – American Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) Allocation Plan (Attachment A).

2. Authorize the City Manager to submit all documents required to receive the City’s HOME-ARP funds to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Mayor Himmelrich pulled this to ask staff why the Housing Commission not weigh in on this plan item.

Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to approve the recommended action. The motion was approved by the following vote:

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

5.H
Packet Pg. 162 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 September 13, 2022

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

STRATEGY

5.F. Award Bid #314 to Initium Health for Development of a Comprehensive Behavioral Health Strategy, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award Bid #314 to Initium Health for the development of a comprehensive behavioral health strategy; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11316 (CCS) with Initium Health for two years for a total amount not to exceed $250,000, with future-year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Councilmember Parra pulled this item to ask staff to explain what we currently have in place to provide mental health support, and what is the plan going forward.

Motion by Councilmember Parra, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to approve the recommended action. The motion was approved by the following vote:

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

PUBLIC INPUT ON

REMAINING AGENDA
ITEMS:

Member of the public Denise Barton commented on Item 10.H.

SPECIAL JOINT

MEETING OF THE CITY

COUNCIL AND HOUSING

AUTHORITY
On order of the Mayor, the regular City Council meeting was recessed to reconvene to a joint meeting with the Housing Authority at 8:14 p.m., with all members present.

REPORT ON MEETING

COMPENSATION
Pursuant to State law, City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren announced that Council will receive $50 compensation for meeting as the Housing Authority.

STUDY SESSION:

RESIDENT ADVISORY
BOARD

7.A. Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Housing Authority Board review and comment on the current and alternative approaches to achieving Resident Advisory Board input on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Plans and direct the City Manager to return to City Council following the November 2022 election with actions necessary to implement direction received from City

5.H
Packet Pg. 163 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 September 13, 2022
Council or further discussion regarding the alternatives presented, as warranted.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: how is the city in compliance with Housing Urban Development (HUD) with regard to the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) regulations; is there an estimate of the value of housing vouchers that most Santa Monicans receive, and how many participants are there; does the money for the vouchers comes from the Federal Government; is it correct that the City Council is the body responsible for the Administering the City’s voucher program, and would be liable, if something were to go wrong with it; is it expected for people on the RAB to be able to understand the over 700 pages of regulations that apply to the various housing programs; is it safe to say we meet the minimum HUD requirements for a RAB; is there a reason the city doesn’t host an annual RAB meeting to receive feedback; has staff had a robust discussion about how to get more participation from RAB members; do all cities run their Section 8, HUD programs through their city’s Administrative staff, and how do most cities run their programs; is there a way to change this system, and look at other cities to see if there is a more efficient way to run this system; is it accurate that 66 members attended the last Housing Commission meeting regarding RAB; how are the RAB meeting notices communicated with the residents, is it done in other languages; is the basic function of a RAB to provide feedback on the Housing Plan; is there a way to have the functioning Administrative body, and have the RAB serve as a communication body to provide input on various Housing Plans; would the Client Advisory Board (CAB) be subject to the Brown Act; would the communications of the CAB be subject to the Public Records Act; how would the CAB members be selected; is there any Federal guidance on how a RAB would be selected; how do we ensure that the selection process meets all of the diversity and inclusive requirements; and, does the city have $68,000 for Administrative cost to form a RAB that is funded by HUD.

Members of the public Denise Barton, Deborah Lynch, David Morris, Olga Zurawska (time donated by John Alle), Theresa Marasco, Michael Louis, Ann Thanawalla, and Denise McGranahan commented on the recommended action.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to: let the RAB be self-determined; the Council needs to create the guidelines to select a RAB that meets the HUD guidelines; the Council is responsible for the Administration of the funds the city receives from the Federal government; that the CAB is an Advisory body; the CAB needs to be a Brown Act body; how will the Public Records Act apply; and, decide how many people and how they will be selected.

5.H
Packet Pg. 164 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 September 13, 2022
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre, to give direction to the City Manager to return as soon as possible and support the Housing Commission’s recommendations and direct them to schedule the very first meeting of the CAB, and include all legal descriptions, including Brown Act, etc., in this direction. And further, staff should come back and analyze what was said tonight and try and come back with their best representations. Maybe comeback mid to late October with recommendations that Council can look at to have a more substantial conversation.

The City Manager provided clarification that the October date may be too short of a time period and recommended changing the timeline to “as soon as possible.” The amendment to the direction was accepted by the maker and seconder.

The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote by all Council/Authority members present.

ADJOURNMENT OF

SPECIAL JOINT

MEETING
On order of the Chair/Mayor, the special joint meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m., and the regular meeting of the City Council was reconvened with all members present.

ORDINANCES:

STREET PERFORMERS
Councilmember Brock was
excused from the dais at
10:24 p.m.

10.A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2713 (CCS) entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 6.112 CONCERNING STREET PERFORMERS ADJACENT
TO THE THIRD STREET PROMENADE”, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Brock
SIDEWALK VENDING 10.B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2714 (CCS) entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS 6.36.040 TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
STATIONARY VENDING IN PALISADES PARK”, was presented.

5.H
Packet Pg. 165 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 10 September 13, 2022
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Brock
MOBILITY SERVICES 10.C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2715 (CCS) entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL
SECTION 3.22.090 TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE SECOND
SHARED MOBILITY DEVICE PILOT PROGRAM FROM MARCH 30,
2023 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2023, AND CREATING SANTA MONICA
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.23 TO ESTABLISH A
CONTRACTING MODEL SHARED MOBILITY DEVICE PROGRAM”,
was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

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

TENANT PROTECTION
LAWS

10.D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2716 (CCS) entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS 4.56.020, 4.28.030, AND ADDING SECTIONS 4.27.060 AND 4.27.070 TO CHAPTER 4.27”, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof.

5.H
Packet Pg. 166 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 11 September 13, 2022
The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Brock
TENANT PROTECTION 10.E. Second Reading and Adoption on Ordinance No. 2717 (CCS) entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING SECTION 4.27.080 TO THE SANTA

MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC SAFETY

AND WELFARE BY TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING CERTAIN
EVICTIONS DUE TO TENANTS’ FINANCIAL HARDSHIP”, was
presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

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

AMBULANCE AND

BILLING SERVICES
Councilmember Brock
returned to the dais at
10:29 p.m.

10.F. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2718 (CCS) entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 4.65.030 TO PROVIDE A TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FOR
EMERGENCY AMBULANCE AND BILLING SERVICES”, was
presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

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

5.H
Packet Pg. 167 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 12 September 13, 2022
OCEAN VIEW PARK 10.G. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. (CCS) 2719 entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MODIFYING SECTION 4.12.105 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING AMPLIFIED SOUND”, was
presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to give direction to for staff to keep track the number of both complaints, as well as the concerns received about enforcement actions in response to this statute.

The amended motion was approved by unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

SITTING AND LYING IN

DOORWAYS

10.H. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend SMMC Section 4.08.097 to expand to other locations beyond Main Street and Downtown, was presented.

Recommended Action
Introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section 4.08.097 to: (1) eliminate its location restrictions and expand enforcement to other areas of the City, including the City’s major transit corridors; and (2) clarify the definition of entrance.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: does this change in the ordinance the required 30-day notice from businesses; do businesses only need to post a sign in the front and the back of the business; does this only apply to entrances into businesses; does this apply to the front and rear entrances; and does this remove the requirement for the business owner to have to call for enforcement.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to, the city needs to do significant outreach to businesses, including laminated jackets to post the notice, to make it easy for businesses to post.

5.H
Packet Pg. 168 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 13 September 13, 2022
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

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

COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:

ARTS COMMISSION

16.A. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Arts Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2023, was presented.

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

Mayor Himmelrich nominated Kathleen Benjamin.

There being no other nominations, Kathleen Benjamin was appointed to the Arts Commission for a term ending June 30, 2023, by acclamation with all members present.

PERSONNEL BOARD 16.B. Recommendation to accept Eve Brosnahan's resignation from the Personnel Board and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy, was presented.

Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to accept the resignation with regret.

The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

DIGITAL SIGNAGE
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
was excused at 10:47 p.m.

Councilmember de la Torre
was excused at 10:48 p.m.
.

16.C. Request of Councilmembers Brock and McCowan that Council direct staff to explore establishing a large-format digital signage pilot program at Santa Monica Place that supports placemaking and stimulates economic recovery efforts in the Downtown. The pilot program should include: (1) a public art component; (2) community messaging and promotion of Santa Monica; and (3) be supported by a revenue-sharing content opportunity to support community programs and services, was presented.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Negrete,to approve the recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Himmelrich

5.H
Packet Pg. 169 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 14 September 13, 2022
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan

ANNENBERG BEACH
HOUSE

16.D. Request of Councilmember Brock that the City waive approximately $1,500 in rental fees for the use of the Guest House Veranda Rooms at the Annenberg Beach House on October 22, 2022, to host a meeting of the California Association of Parks and Recreation Commissioners & Board Members, was presented.

Questions asked and answered of staff including, any financial conflict with Councilmember Brock, because he serves as a member on the board.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to approve the recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

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

PROGRAM

RELOCATION
Councilmember de la Torre
returned at 10:55 p.m.

16.E. Request of Councilmembers Negrete and Brock that the City Council endorse and authorize the City Manager to transmit the attached letter requesting that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors support and assist the City of Santa Monica in relocating the Harm Reduction Syringe Services Program from its parks and open spaces to a service rich environment that aligns with the City’s Four Pillar Strategy to address homelessness. The City Manager is also being asked to transmit this letter to candidates for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Senator Bob Hertzberg and City Councilmember, Lindsey Horvath, was presented.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to approve the recommendation. The motion was unanimously approved unanimous voice vote by all members, with, with Mayor Pro Tem McCowan absent.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 11:01 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor

5.H
Packet Pg. 170 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 13, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 13
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Architecture Services Subject: Memorial Park Expansion
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Review and comment on restarting the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project with a reduced initial phase that is still in line with the approved master plan;

2. Provide direction to staff to reengage Santa Monica College (SMC) and Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) in negotiations for potential fiscal and use agreements; and

3. Direct staff to study possible temporary relocation sites for the Public Landscape Division’s operation yard and return with a recommended alternative.

Summary
The City of Santa Monica parks system includes 32 parks encompassing more than 130 acres. Memorial Park was established in the 1950’s and is geographically located in the center of the City. It is important to the overall park system, serving as the primary park for baseball and softball, offering a space for pickleball and tennis and being the home of the City’s only public gymnasium and skate park.

The Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project (Project) would combine the existing 10.3-acre Memorial Park with the former Fisher Lumber site – a City-owned,

2.9-acre property adjacent to the existing park – into a 13.2-acre newly renovated and expanded community park that meets the increasing demand for recreational activities.

The combined site is bound by Colorado Avenue to the north, 16th Street to the east, Olympic Boulevard to the south, and 14th Street to the west. The Project would

7.A
Packet Pg. 171
2 of 13
integrate components of the Pedestrian Action Plan and Bicycle Action Plan and require the relocation of the City’s Public Landscape Division (PLD). An extensive community outreach process guided the development of a master plan layout and park program for the future renovation and expansion of Memorial Park that would include additional diamond sports fields and other highly desired community amenities. A subsequent community outreach effort identified potential relocation sites for PLD. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic both the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project and the PLD relocation effort were suspended. With reduced funding available and significant increases in construction costs over the past two and a half years, Project implementation today would require segmenting the Project into smaller phases than originally planned.

Staff recommends the Council review and provide direction to staff on the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project with a reduced initial phase that is in line with the approved master plan; provide direction to staff to reengage Santa Monica College (SMC) and Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) in negotiations for potential fiscal and use agreements; and direct staff to study possible temporary relocation sites for the PLD’s operation yard and return with a recommended alternative that includes costs and timeframes.

Background
The need to expand and redefine the role of Memorial Park was established in Santa Monica’s 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Attachment A). The City purchased the Fisher Lumber site in 2004 with the intention of expanding Memorial Park. The City took occupancy of the site in 2005 and has since used the property to house the PLD staff, materials and equipment.

7.A
Packet Pg. 172
3 of 13
Figure 1: Site Map
In March 2016, the Council adopted and formally selected the expansion of Memorial Park as one of the City’s highest priority park projects and incorporated it into the Los Angeles Countywide Parks Needs Assessment Report (Attachment B). After a competitive procurement process, Council awarded an agreement to AHBE Landscape Architects in January 2018 to provide professional design services for the development of a feasibility study and master plan layout for an expanded and redeveloped park that would meet the following objectives:
• Maximize opportunities for fields with a focus on diamond sports; • Consider community programs such as the gymnasium, Santa Monica Police Activities League (PAL), and fitness facilities;
• Integrate appropriate buffering along busy vehicular corridors; • Integrate the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plans; and • Consider the park’s relationship to the surrounding neighborhood and City context.

7.A
Packet Pg. 173
4 of 13
On October 15, 2019, City Council reviewed the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Master Plan that was the product of a community engagement process and directed staff to seek proposals for the design and preconstruction services of phases 1 and 2 of the park redevelopment and expansion. In addition, Council authorized staff to negotiate Fiscal and Use Agreements with SMC and SMMUSD.

On February 11, 2020, City Council awarded a design-build agreement to W.E. O’Neil Corporation to begin design of the Project, but before the contract could be fully executed, the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, and the project was suspended.

Public Landscape Relocation
The City’s PLD has been operating out of the former Fisher Lumber site adjacent to Memorial Park since being relocated from the airport in 2005. From this location, the city Park Maintenance and Urban Forestry crews care for the landscaping and irrigation in 28 parks and nearly 300 medians and public open spaces throughout the city and maintain over 35,000 public trees. The site hosts over 40 city employees, contains staff locker rooms and offices, repair shops, bulk material and equipment storage, as well as parking for staff and their work vehicles. The site also accommodates a limited number of parking spaces for the City’s contracted land care and urban forest contractors.

As part of the original effort to expand Memorial Park in 2019, staff explored a variety of relocation sites including the City Yards, and other publicly owned property at the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Public Works ultimately selected an underutilized maintenance hangar on the airport property as a temporary location (5-10 years) for the PLD operations until a permanent location could be identified that would adequately meet the space and logistical needs of this critical work unit. Concerns from local residents about the proximity of municipal operations to a residential neighborhood led staff to conduct a broader citywide evaluation of alternative sites. In early 2020 staff developed and implemented a public outreach process to identify and assess additional sites that could be well suited to house PLD staff, equipment and materials storage. Assessment criteria included availability of land over twenty-five thousand square feet (PLD’s land size requirements are actually closer to fifty thousand square feet), functionality for PLD

7.A
Packet Pg. 174
5 of 13
operations to access all parts of Santa Monica efficiently and effectively, neighborhood impacts, and development costs and timeline, among others.

Staff, along with a community advisory working group, analyzed the feasibility of 42 potential sites over twenty-five thousand square feet throughout the city before narrowing it down to four final scenarios that met the balance of the criteria as shown in Figures 2 and 3 below. All four final sites were on the Santa Monica Airport campus, including the original site that had been identified previously. No other public or private parcels in Santa Monica were identified despite rigorous analysis and vetting by the community advisory working group. Each Airport alternative required the undertaking of the design/development process (2-3 years) as well as several million dollars in development costs for facilities. In addition, siting PLD at SMO would require significant land lease expenditures (the City is required to pay fair market value to the Airport Fund for use of airport land) between $250,000 - $500,000 annually. Before those final options could be presented to Council, the COVID-19 pandemic arrived, and all additional work was cancelled. The final report is included here as Attachment G.

Figure 2: Map of All Parcels Greater than 25K Square Feet in City of Santa Monica

7.A
Packet Pg. 175
6 of 13

Figure 3: Map of Four Final Relocation Scenarios and Original Relocation Site at SMO If directed to proceed with Memorial Park redevelopment, a critical first step is to accommodate the needs of the City’s PLD on a separate parcel. Without an operational base of sufficient size and location, the City’s 28 parks, 300 medians and public open spaces, and urban forest of over 35,000 public canopy trees cannot be adequately maintained to the City’s standard of care.

Discussion
Restarting the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project comes with several challenges that would need to be addressed for the project to move forward:
• A revised project budget and funding schedule needs to be established; • The project scope needs to be revised to accommodate the new budget and available funding; and
• A temporary location (5-10 years) for the PLD operations must be selected until a permanent location that adequately meets the space and logistical needs of this critical work unit can be identified.

7.A
Packet Pg. 176
7 of 13
Funding
In 2016, Santa Monica voters passed Measure V, a Santa Monica College bond measure that included up to $20 million in funding for construction of Phase 1 of the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project. Upon approval of the master plan in 2019, staff also began working with SMMUSD to potentially identify additional construction funding with a goal of approximately $5 million for the project from Measure SMS bonds. The contributions of College and District funding were conditioned upon programmed joint uses of the completed Memorial Park facilities. These funds, along with approximately $5 million in City Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funding, made up the previous project budget of $30 million for the design and construction of phase 1 and the schematic design of phase 2. The total cost estimate to complete design and construction of all three phases of the Project was $100 – $116 million in capital costs in 2019. In addition, the estimate to relocate PLD in 2020 was between $1.4 - $3 million in capital costs for facility development and would require significant land lease expenditures between $250,000 - $500,000 annually depending on final location selection.

Currently, the only project funds available may be up to $20 million dedicated to park redevelopment from the SMC bond measure that have been preserved for this park expansion since the project was suspended by the City as a result of the pandemic.

Staff would need to engage in new negotiations with SMC and SMMUSD on potential fiscal and use agreement terms. No funding is currently available for PLD relocation and staff would return with funding requests based on a recommended location.

Scope
The feasibility study and master planning process included an examination of existing conditions and park program elements, and the completion of an extensive community outreach process. The result is a single, cohesive master plan layout that addresses long-standing issues at Memorial Park, including but not limited to inadequate field functionality, restrictive perimeter and edge conditions, poor connections to the surrounding neighborhood, and misused restrooms and other amenities. The existing condition and approved master plan are shown below in Figure 4.

7.A
Packet Pg. 177
8 of 13
Figure 4: Existing Memorial Park and Approved Memorial Park Master Plan Layout The master plan always envisioned a phased approach that would be implemented over time as funding was available. Phase 1 is shown below in Figure 5 and was originally conceived as the northern half of the park, including four synthetic turf baseball/softball combination fields, a temporary natural turf practice field, the covered parking lot, pickleball/tennis courts, the Community Hub building, and the playground.

7.A
Packet Pg. 178
9 of 13
Figure 5: Approved Phase 1 and Anticipated Reduced Phase 1 of Memorial Park Master Plan Layout In order to begin implementation of the master plan now, it would be necessary to segment the Project into additional smaller phases. With a reduced project budget and the significant increases in construction costs over the past two and a half years, staff now estimate phase 1 of the Project could include construction of fields 1-2, the covered parking lot, and the pickleball/tennis courts. Mobility and streetscape improvements on 14th Street and Colorado Avenue would be included to the extent the budget allows.

7.A
Packet Pg. 179
10 of 13
The reduced scope of the proposed phase 1 aligns with the objectives that were outlined in the development of the feasibility study and master plan layout for an expanded and redeveloped park. However, due to funding limitations, the remaining scope of the original phase 1, including fields 3-4, the temporary natural turf practice field, the Community Hub building, and the playground would now be included in phase

2. This would leave the park without a playground until phase 2 was complete.

The balance of Memorial Park would be maintained in its current condition and the remaining land of the former Fisher Lumber site would be used temporarily as a dog run and park maintenance material storage until funding is identified to begin phase 2.

The proposed expansion would convert an additional two acres of the northern parcel (formerly the Fisher Lumber site) into public park land to allow for the development of the reduced phase 1 that would include:

Sports Fields
Fields 1-2, referred to as a combination (or combo) field, would utilize synthetic turf to create adaptable play space for baseball and softball groups of all ages. It is designed for flexibility. The combo field could accommodate a single regulation high school baseball game, adult softball game or collegiate softball game. Additionally, the field could be divided with temporary fencing to accommodate two youth baseball, or two youth fast pitch softball games played simultaneously. The field would feature covered dugouts, shaded spectator seating, and LED sports lighting. A batting cage for shared use sits adjacent to the combo field. Amenities such as pitchers’ bullpens and additional batting cages would be considered in the design phase and in coordination with the fiscal and use agreements with SMC and SMMUSD.

Pickleball/Tennis Courts
Sixteen pickleball courts with overlapping striping for four tennis courts would be elevated over the new on-site surface parking lot and would include stairs and an

7.A
Packet Pg. 180
11 of 13
elevator. The courts would feature LED sports lighting, wide perimeter clearance spaces, and dedicated equipment storage immediately adjacent to the play area.

Parking
The covered parking lot would increase parking inventory to be used exclusively by park patrons and would include a safe and convenient passenger loading zone and turnaround area. The parking lot’s central location would make it easily accessible from all areas of the park.

Mobility and Streetscape Improvements
Mobility and streetscape improvements on 14th Street and Colorado Avenue would be included to the extent the budget allows. The proposed master plan includes 4’-wide planted areas that would provide a buffer between generous 8’-wide perimeter sidewalks and field activity within the park. Street trees and parkway planters would create a sense of comfort for pedestrians walking along the street and a shared use bike path completely separated from the street along the Colorado Avenue park frontage (Class I bike path) would allow for future connection to the Exposition Corridor Bike Path.

Public Landscape Relocation
If directed to proceed, staff would restart the study of possible temporary relocation sites for PLD’s operation yard and return to discuss findings and outline a potential recommendation that includes costs and timeframes. At this time no additional new sites at the scale required to host PLD are known and some of the previous alternatives may no longer be viable as other plans have moved forward in the past two and a half years.

Next Steps
If directed to proceed, staff would restart the Memorial Park Expansion Project with a reduced initial phase that is in line with the approved master plan, reengage SMC and SMMUSD in negotiations for potential fiscal and use agreements, and study possible temporary relocation sites, including associated costs, for the PLD’s operation yard.

7.A
Packet Pg. 181
12 of 13
Staff would return to Council by April 2023 for approval to proceed with Request for Bid for design and pre-construction services of the reduced phase 1 of the Memorial Park Expansion Project, enter into fiscal and use agreements with the SMC and SMMUSD, and begin planning the relocation of the PLD’s operation yard subject to a Councilapproved location and budget.

If directed to do so, the relocation of the PLD’s operation yard would be submitted to City Council for approval as part of the CIP exception-based budget in 2023. If prioritized and approved, staff anticipates the design, construction, and relocation would be completed by the end of 2024.

If approved to bid the reduced phase 1 of the Memorial Park Expansion Project in April 2023, and contingent on available CIP funding and the schedule outlined above for the relocation of the PLD, it is anticipated that bidding, design, and permitting of the reduced phase 1 would be completed by Spring of 2025 and construction would be completed in 2026.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
07/01/97 (attachment A) Adopt Santa Monica Parks and Recreation Master Plan 03/22/16 (attachment B) Selection of Priority Park Projects for Inclusion in the Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Parks & Recreation
Needs Assessment Report
01/23/18 (attachment C) Award of Design Agreement for the Memorial Park Feasibility Study and Master Plan
10/15/19 (attachment D) Review of Master Plan layout and park program for renovation and expansion of Memorial Park
02/11/20 (attachment E) Award Bid and enter into a Design-Build Contract with W.E. O'Neil Corporation for Memorial Park
Redevelopment and Expansion Project
05/05/20 (attachment F) Santa Monica: A Plan for Our Future - City Restructuring and Associated Modifications to the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Resulting from Economic Impacts of COVID-19
Pandemic

7.A
Packet Pg. 182
13 of 13
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. However, no City funds are currently available to restart the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project or to relocate PLD and these projects were not included in the City’s 5-year CIP projection. Currently the only project funds available for the park redevelopment and expansion may be up to $20 million from the SMC bond measure. Staff would return with a recommended location and funding request for the relocation of PLD. Any City financial contribution to these projects would require additional revenue recovery or reprioritization of projects.

Prepared By: Amelia Feichtner, Senior Architect
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. July 1, 1997 Staff Report
B. March 22, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link)
C. January 23, 2018 Staff Report (Web Link)
D. October 15, 2019 Staff Report (Web Link)
E. February 11, 2020 Staff Report (Web Link)
F. May 05, 2020 Staff Report (Web Link)
G. Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary H. ADD-TO: RPC Letter to Council re Memorial Park SMC
I. Written Comment

7.A
Packet Pg. 183

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 1

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Public Landscape
Relocation Process
www.smgov.net/pldrelocation
contact: [email protected]

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
February 19, 2020
Site Alternatives
Analysis
April 2020

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 2 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis

BACKGROUND
The Public Landscape Division (PLD) occupies a portion of a large industrial parcel adjacent to Memorial Park, which has been its headquarters since 2005. In 2017, the City Council approved to develop a masterplan to renovate Memorial Park. The masterplan included expanding the park into the parcel currently occupied by PLD and anticipated that PLD would be relocated off site. The Public Works Department (PW) with Architecture Services Division (ASD) has looked at several alternative sites throughout the City (private, institutional and City Owned) including numerous sites at the Airport. PW staff developed a public outreach process to identify and assess which site/s would be the best suited for the temporary home for PLD. Assessment criteria included; functionality for PLD operations, neighborhood impacts, development cost and timeline, among others.

Community Workshop and Engagement
At a February 19th, 2020 Community Workshop, staff provided information related to PLD’s operational activities, as well as the scale of their workforce and required vehicles and equipment. Over 50 community members were invited to ask questions of staff, and to address a large format map of the city that identified parcels of significant size adequate to contain the division. That exercise resulted in the identification of 42 individual sites for further analysis.

Initial Analysis and Formation of Resident Relocation Committee Staff analyzed the 42 identified sites for potential feasibility. The sites were organized into broad ownership categories (privately-owned, institution/utility-owned, and City-owned) for the purpose of better understanding the methodology for acquiring or leasing the land.

This analysis included descriptions of the site characteristics, available infrastructure, real estate availability, impact evaluation, and congruency with operational criteria. HACK THE MOVE!!
Site #
Owner
Site Characteristics Real Estate Evaluation
Impact Evaluation
Operational Criteria
Biggest Opportunities
Biggest Challenges
Lot Area Available 12/20?
Construction
Required?
Electricity Noise
Equipment
Storage
Building Onsite
Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3
SF
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ex. OK Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Description
Description
Notes Sewer Light/Air
Facility for Staff
Dimesions x
Gas Air Quality
Bulk Storage
Water Traffic
Adjacent to Residential?
Potential Impacts
Vehicle Parking
Consolidated Split
Sale
Value ($)
Lease
Infrastructure
Map View Street View
ADA
Earthwork
Required?
Access to Parks
and Urban Forest
Notes
Address APN #
Created by Made by Made
from the Noun Project Created by Made by Made
from the Noun Project
Created by Justin Blake 120,000+ sq. ft. from the Noun Project 37 City of Santa Monica
Airport North East None.

Would require full build out.

Complicated by Measure LC. Very costly to
build out this area. Staff is exploring.

Adjacent to LA residences. Good access to Ocean
Park Blvd.

Two development sites, each approximately 60,000 SF. Large site could facilitate all of the PLD operations.

Connection to all utilities will be difficult, particularly connections in Los Angeles. Earthwork would be required for easternmost portion. Measure LC does not allow for development of
permanent uses. Adjacent to LA residences.
42 inidividual sites were identified as potential alternatives at a February 19th Community Workshop that drew over 50 particpants.

The 42 sites were further analyzed for feasibility and operational effectiveness. Also included in the early analysis was a consideration of potential community impacts.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 3
On March 9, 2020, the PLD Relocation project team met with the four members of the public review “Relocation Committee” that volunteered to help assess the selected sites and provide guidance from a resident viewpoint. During this meeting, the team presented findings from the analysis of the 42 sites and discussed the inhernt tradeoffs associated with the selection of private, institutional or City-owned sites. From the initial list of 42 identified sites, only 9 sites were agreed to be potentially available and feasible. These include:
• 3402 Ocean Park Boulevard - Santa Monica Business Park • 1757 Stanford Avenue - Private Warehouse Facility
• 3402 Pico Boulevard - Creative Office Building
• 1734 Colorado Avenue - METRO Owned Lot
• 402 Colorado Avenue - City Owned lot at EXPO Station
• 1636 5th Street - City Owned office building and small parking lot • Airport Northeast Corner (undeveloped raw land)
• 2800 Airport Avenue - City Owned land leased to SMC
• 3011 Airport Avenue - City Owned hangard
Analysis of 9 Shortlist Sites – Further Refinement
Staff further assessed these nine potentially viable sites. Staff investigated in depth the ownership and lease scenarios, operation functionality, and estimated costs of improvements. From this effort, five of the nine shortlisted sites were eliminated as follows:
• 3402 Ocean Park Bouelvard - Lease would be $55,000 per month ($660,000/ year), the area offered for lease was a vacant restaurant that would require $1M in renovation costs. Space was adequate for office work, but did not provide space for bulk storage, parking, or equipment repair. • 1757 Stanford- Lease would be $98,067/month (1,176,810/year), the area offered for lease was only for warehouse space leaving office, locker shower, toilet, or repair shop spaces to go somewhere else. Vertical/vehicle requirements for bulk storage and delivery is not possible. • 3402 Pico- lease would be $33,770/ month ($405,240/year) and only provided for office space and a small modicum of personal vehicle parking. All other requirements would have to be provided elsewhere.
• 1734 Colorado- Owned by METRO. Actual lot size (12,000 sq ft) can only accommodate Bulk Storage requirements.
• 402 Colorado- METRO Terminus parking lot- Actual usable space (28,000) cannot accommodate all equipment, bulk storage, and repair areas. Vehicle access to/from site would be problematic.
• 1635 5th Street- Provides required office space, but does not provide parking for staff and does not have space for equipment, bulk storage, and repair areas.
9 alternative sites were identified through the research and refinement process. 40 35
42 34
17 18
19 27
12 39
25 21
30 32
24 9
4 3
26 13
20 2
11 5
23 28
1 14
16 22
31 3
33 15
6 29
7 10
8 36
37 37
38 41
43 Privately-Owned Sites
ligible Sites as of 3.17.20
All Ineligible Sites
neligible Sites as of 3.17.20
Institutional/Utility/Other
City-Owned Sites
Airport Sites (City)
25 30
32 24
4 3
26 2
5 23
28 14
22 31
3 15
29 8
Privately-Owned Sites
Eligible Sites as of 3.17.20
All Ineligible Sites
Ineligible Sites as of 3.17.20
Institutional/Utility/Other
City-Owned Sites
Airport Sites (City)

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 4 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Final Four Scenarios
The removal of these five shortlist sites left only three other viable site alternatives to the 2950 25th Street property. Staff was able to establish four potential scenarios from these three sites, which were all center in and around the Airport facility, specifically:
• Existing Option: 2950 25th Street Hangar with surrounding parking areas for maintenance equipment and staff and Clover Park CCS/PLD trailer for supervisor staff.
• Scenario 1: Airport NE Corner (Car Dealership Storage area at S. Centinela Ave and Bundy Ave).
• Scenario 2: 3011 Airport Ave Hangar, office and tie down space. • Scenario 3: 2800 Airport Ave Santa Monica College office building. • Scenario 4: 2800 Airport Ave SMC modular trailer building.

The four scenarios are described in detail on the following pages. This content includes information about proposed layouts, construction budget, and lease assumptions (Airport land must be leased at a fair market value. The City’s General Fund would be responsible for paying rent to the Airport Fund, per Federal statutes).

Impact of COVID-19 on PLD Relocation Process
City staff finalized their assessment and started preparing to present the remaining four sites to the public review committee. Due to the Covid-19 global pandemic the Memorial Park Expansion project has been put on hold thus eliminating the urgency to finalize this Alternative Location Assessment process. This summary report has been written to act as the starting point when this project is started again in the future.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 5
HACK THE MOVE!!
Site #
Owner
Site Characteristics Real Estate Evaluation
Impact Evaluation
Operational Criteria
Biggest Opportunities
Biggest Challenges
Lot Area Available 12/20?
Construction
Required?
Electricity Noise
Equipment
Storage
Building Onsite
Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3
SF
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ex. OK Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Description
Description
Notes Sewer Light/Air
Facility for Staff
Dimesions x
Gas Air Quality
Bulk Storage
Water Traffic
Adjacent to Residential?
Potential Impacts
Vehicle Parking
Consolidated Split
Sale
Value ($)
Lease
Infrastructure
Map View Street View
ADA
Earthwork
Required?
Access to Parks
and Urban Forest
Notes
Address APN #
Created by Made by Made
from the Noun Project Created by Made by Made
from the Noun Project
Created by Justin Blake 120,000+ sq. ft. from the Noun Project 37 City of Santa Monica
Airport North East None.

Would require full build out.

Complicated by Measure LC. Very costly to
build out this area. Staff is exploring.

Adjacent to LA residences. Good access to Ocean
Park Blvd.

Two development sites, each approximately 60,000 SF. Large site could facilitate all of the PLD operations.

HACK THE MOVE!!
Site #
Owner
Site Characteristics Real Estate Evaluation
Impact Evaluation
Operational Criteria
Biggest Opportunities
Biggest Challenges
Lot Area Available 12/20?
Construction
Required?
Electricity Noise
Equipment
Storage
Building Onsite
Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3
SF
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ex. OK Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Description
Description
Notes Sewer Light/Air
Facility for Staff
Dimesions x
Gas Air Quality
Bulk Storage
Water Traffic
Adjacent to Residential?
Potential Impacts
Vehicle Parking
Consolidated Split
Sale
Value ($)
Lease
Infrastructure
Map View Street View
ADA
Earthwork
Required?
Access to Parks
and Urban Forest
Notes
Address APN #
Created by Made by Made
from the Noun Project Created by Made by Made
from the Noun Project
Created by Justin Blake 90,000 sq. ft. from the Noun Project 41 City of Santa Monica
2800 Airport Avenue
Staff is exploring potential to break lease, or
lease portion of site in combination with
other sites.

Large site could facilitate all of the PLD operation needs.

Existing buildings could be ready for move-in.

Currently in a 5 year lease with SMC. Very expensive leashold (approx $500K per year to airport fund).

HACK THE MOVE!!
Site #
Owner
Site Characteristics Real Estate Evaluation
Impact Evaluation
Operational Criteria
Biggest Opportunities
Biggest Challenges
Lot Area Available 12/20?
Construction
Required?
Electricity Noise
Equipment
Storage
Building Onsite
Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3
SF
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ex. OK Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Description
Description
Notes Sewer Light/Air
Facility for Staff
Dimesions x
Gas Air Quality
Bulk Storage
Water Traffic
Adjacent to Residential?
Potential Impacts
Vehicle Parking
Consolidated Split
Sale
Value ($)
Lease
Infrastructure
Map View Street View
ADA
Earthwork
Required?
Access to Parks
and Urban Forest
Notes
Address APN #
Created by Made by Made
from the Noun Project Created by Made by Made
from the Noun Project
Created by Justin Blake 35,800 sq. ft. from the Noun Project 8,800
42 City of Santa Monica
3011 Airport Ave 4272-026-902- Part of 3223
Staff is exploring this site in combination
with others.

This site facilitates a portion of PLD requirements.

This site requires areas that are currently used by aircraft (tie downs). In order to use this site, these ties downs need to be relocated, which is challenging.

Three Viable Sites for Study and Exploration
Analysis resulted in the identification of only three remaining alternative sites to the 2950 25th Street property. All of the sites are located at the Airport campus, and include a range of constraints that needed further study. These sites include:
• Airport Northeast Corner
• 3011 Airport Avenue
• 2800 Airport Avenue (SMC)
These three viable sites form the basis of the four scenarios that are presented in this report in the following pages.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 6 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Scenario 1
(Airport NE Corner- car dealer storage)
This scenario proposes a consolidated operation on the area currently occupied by “car dealer’s storage.” The area would accommodate PLD supervisors, muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing rooms in a new 36x60 Modular Trailer at this site; PLD Vehicles and three conex boxes to be stored in the parking lot open to the sky; small equipment, hand tools, equipment repair and bulk materials would be stored in a tent structure; and staff personal vehicles would be parked on the parking lot open to the sky (45 spaces).

The ROM cost is $2,924,348 for construction and $250,600 lease per year. The timeline for this project would be 34-38 months from the actual start of the project.

Pros-
• Good access to/from the site from City streets- Centinela Ave • Consolidated Operation
Cons-
• Must access into secure gated area (airfield)- adds to time to get in/out of the airfield.
• SCE upgrade for EV charging stations required
The “Northeast Corner” of the Airport is largely undeveloped. This particular area is currently improved with a 80,000 square foot surface parking lot.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 7
43,613 sf

PERSONAL

VEHICLES
OFFICE

TRAILER
26'-0"
291'-10 1/2"

CONEX BOX

CONEX BOX
181'-7 1/2"

EV CHARGING
65,255.6 sf
25'-1"
ADA
1 5
10 15
20 PICK UP TRUCKS
25'-1"
S
1 5
10 11
19 20
27 28
35 42
45 43
40 SCENARIO 1
273'-8"

BULK STORAGE

EQPT STORAGE
28'-4"
ABEL
Site layout of Scenario 1 at the Northeast Corner. This exercise helps determine the capacity of the site to accommodate the operational requirements for the Public Landscape Yards.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 8 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
8'-5 1/16"
4"
6"
1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ EQ
10-1/2"
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ EQ
10-1/2" 8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
1'-9"
10"
6-1/16"
8-1/2"
6-1/16"
10"
1'-2"
2-3/4"
2-3/4"
8-1/2"
1-1/2" 7"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical

BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
° C = PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"
° B = PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"
° PL3 A = 8 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksi
C
B

B B B B B B

B ALL OTHERS FRAMES - SIMILAR
SHOWN
TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAYOUT for "HELICAL" PILE SUPPORT
4"
A
A
1 A
A
O.H. 1
9 4"
OUT-TO-OUT 32'-0"
9'-0" 14'-0" 9'-0"
B
C
A
D
168'-0" CENTER-TO-CENTER
21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 9
NOTE: All Base Plates @ 100'-0" (U.N.)

ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B

C C C C C C C
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE

ROOF FRAMING PLAN
do
do
do
do
do
do do do
do do do do do
do do
do do do do do
do (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE A
D
1 2 345 6 7 8
9 A DIVISION OF
ENGINEERING SERVICES & PRODUCTS CO.
1440 18TH AVENUE SW
DYERSVILLE, IA 52040
P: 563.875.6113
F: 563.875.2317
WWW.ESAPCO.COM

DEVELOPED BY
CUSTOMER INFORMATION:CITY OF SUFFOLK, VA442 W. WASHINGTON STREETSUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23434CUSTOMER CONTACT:ANTONIO JORDON STRUCTURE SIZE:32'-0" X 168'-0"
CONTACT PHONE:757-541-7624
STRUCTURE SKU #:116100STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:CUSTOM I-BEAM MONOSLOPE ORDER #:
7410555
CUSTOMER #:
8748676

DRAWING DETAILS
NOT TO SCALE SHEET SIZE: 11X17
JJM
4 CREATION DATE:
3/29/2018 DRAWN BY:CCC
4/19/2018
3 2
1 NO. BY: REVISION DATE:

REVISIONS:

E1
SHEET:

SHEET TITLE:FRAMING PLAN
8'-5 1/16"
4"
6"
1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ EQ
10-1/2"
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ EQ
10-1/2" 8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
1'-9"
10"
6-1/16"
8-1/2"
6-1/16"
10"
1'-2"
2-3/4"
2-3/4"
8-1/2"
1-1/2" 7"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical

BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
° C = PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"
° B = PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"
° PL3 A = 8 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksi
C
B

B B B B B B

ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B

C C C C C C C
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE

ROOF FRAMING PLAN
do
do
do
do
do
do do do
do do do do do
do do
do do do do do
do (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE A
D
1 2 345 6 7 8
9 A DIVISION OF

ENGINEERING SERVICES &
1440 18TH AVENU

DYERSVILLE, IA
P: 563.875.61
F: 563.875.23
WWW.ESAPCO.

DEVELOPED
CUSTOMER INFORMATION:CITY OF SUFFOLK, VA442 W. WASHINGTON STREETSUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23434CUSTOMER CONTACT:ANTONIO JORDON STRUCTURE SIZE:32'-0" X 168'-0"
CONTACT PHONE:757-541-7624
STRUCTURE SKU #:116100
ORDER #:
741055
CUSTOMER #:
874867

DRAWING DE

NOT TO SCALE SHE
JJM
4 CRE
3/29
DRAWN BY:

CCC
4/19
3 2
1 NO. BY: REV

REVISION
E1
SHEET:
24"x24" CONCRETE PUSH BLOCKSMOVABLE.

A
A

B B B B B B B
30"x30" CONCRETE PUSH BLOCKSMOVABLE.
439.4 sf
18'-4 1/2"
19'-10 1/2"
8'-5 1/16"
4"
6"
1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ EQ
10-1/2"
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ EQ
10-1/2" 8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
1'-9"
10"
6-1/16"
8-1/2"
6-1/16"
10"
1'-2"
2-3/4"
2-3/4"
8-1/2"
1-1/2" 7"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical

BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
° C = PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"
° B = PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"
° PL3 A = 8 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksi
C
B

B B B B B B

ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B

C C C C C C C
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE

DRAWING DETAILS
NOT TO SCALE SHEET SIZE: 11X17
JJM
4 CREATION DATE:
3/29/2018 DRAWN BY:CCC
4/19/2018
3 2
1 NO. BY: REVISION DATE:

REVISIONS:

E1
SHEET:

SHEET TITLE:FRAMING PLAN
24"x24" CONCRETE PUSH BLOCKSMOVABLE.

ABEL'S SHOP
1,037.4 sf
PUSH BLOCK CALCULATIONS: 30"x30"x5'.

L (back wall)= 7 x 21'= 145'/ 5' (block length)= 29 blocks L (8 Dividers)= 8 x 20'= 160'/ 5'= 32 blocks
Total length= 305'
5' long blocks= 61 per lift7'6" tall walls = three lifts… 3x61=183 blocks required.
$100/block= $18,300.

SWEEPER
7x12
8'-5 1/16"
4"
6"
1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ EQ
10-1/
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ EQ
10-1/2
8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
10 6-1
8-1
6-1
10"
8-1/
1-1/2" 7"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical

BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
° C = PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"
° B = PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"
° PL3 A = 8 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksi
C
B

B B B B B B

B ALL OTHERS
SHOWN
TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAYOUT for "HELICAL" PILE SUPPORT
4"
A
A
1 A
A
O.H. 1
9 4"
OUT-TO-OUT 32'-0"
9'-0" 14'-0" 9'-0"
B
C
A
D
168'-0" CENTER-TO-CENTER
21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 9
NOTE: All Base Plates @ 100'-0" (U.N.)

ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B

C C C C C C C
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE

ROOF FRAMING PLAN
do
do
do
do
do
do do do
do do do do do
do do
do do do do do
do (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE A
D
1 2 345 6 7 8
9 24"x24" CONCRETE PUSH BLOCKSMOVABLE.

SWEEPER
7x12

SWEEPER
7x12
8'-5 1/16"
4"
6"
1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ EQ
10-1/2"
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ EQ
10-1/2" 8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
1'-9"
10"
6-1/16"
8-1/2"
6-1/16"
10"
1'-2"
2-3/4"
2-3/4"
8-1/2"
1-1/2" 7"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical

BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
° C = PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"
° B = PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"
° PL3 A = 8 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksi
C
B

B B B B B B

ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B

C C C C C C C
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE

SWEEPER
7x12

TOOL STORAGE
CAGE

7.5x21
8'-5 1/16"
6"
1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ
8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
10"
1-1/2"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical

BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
° C = PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"
° B = PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"
° PL3 A = 8 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksi
C
B

B B B B B B
B
TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAYOUT for "HELICAL" PILE SUPP
4"
A
A
1 A
A
O.H.
4"
OUT-TO-OUT 32'-0"
9'-0" 14'-0" 9'-0"
B
C
A
D
168'-0" CENTER-TO-CENTER
21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 9
NOTE: All Base Plates @ 100'-0" (U.N.)

ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B

C C C C C C C
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE

RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE

TOOL STORAGE
CAGE

7.5x21

TOOL STORAGE
CAGE

7.5x21
MOWER
10x10
DINGO
4x9
MOWER
10x10
MOWER
10x10
MOWER
10x10
MOWER
10x10
MOWER
10x10
MOWER
10x10
MOWER
10x10
MOWER
10x10
WEED
4x4
TURF
4x4
TURF
4x4
WEED
4x4
146'-8 1/2" 42'-4" 84'-8 1/2"
273'-8"
SCENARIO 1
Diagram illustrating the configuration of temporary strutures that could acommodate bulk and equipment storage and a mechanics shop.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 9

A DIVISION OF
ENGINEERING SERVICES & PRODUCTS CO.
1440 18TH AVENUE SW
DYERSVILLE, IA 52040
P: 563.875.6113
F: 563.875.2317
WWW.ESAPCO.COM

DRAWING DETAILS
NOT TO SCALE SHEET SIZE: 11X17
JJM
4 CREATION DATE:
3/29/2018 DRAWN BY:CCC
4/
/2018
3 2
1 NO. BY: REVISION DATE:

REVISIONS:

E2
SHEET:

SHEET TITLE:LATERAL BRACING CALL OUTS
END RAFTER: 11592
C18EL/R
MID RAFTER: 11592
C18M

PCB
ECB
END RAFTER: 11592C18EL/R
MID RAFTER: 11592C18M
END RAFTER: 115922C18EL/R
MID RAFTER: 115922C18M
AB2
AB
AB
AB
AB
AB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
AB
32'-0" OUT TO OUT

TYPICAL RIGID FRAME
21'-9"
18'-9 1/4"
[E2]

LATERAL BRACING CALL-OUT

BRACE SCHEDULE
• LB = LATERAL BRACE (SKU: LB40G10STL248T)
• ECB = EAVE COVER BRACE (SKU: AWT2PBAL25137)
• PCB = PEAK COVER BRACE (SKU: AWT2PBCL25137)
• AB = ANGLED BRACE (SKU: LB23G14SDL01512)
• AB2 = ANGLED BRACE (SKU: LB23G14SDL01913)
SCENARIO 1
Cross-section of a temporary “tent” structure protecting bulk storage and equipmnt from the elements.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 10 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Interior layout of temporary modular structures showing work stations, locker room, muster room, and other features.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 11
SCENARIO 1- AIRPORT NE CORNER
Scope: Convert existing car dealership parking lot to house all PLD activities.

Activity Notes Budget
Design
Consultant $ 190,296
Design Contingency - 15% $ 19,030
Subtotal: $ 209,326
Construction
Contractor $ 1,585,800
Construction Contingency - 10.0% $ 158,580
Utilities $ 450,000
Subtotal: $ 2,194,380
Project Management & Other Direct Costs
Survey $ 7,929
Geotech/Soils Consultant $ 15,858
PM/CM Consultant $ 39,645
Inspection & Labor Compliance $ 31,716
Public Works Staff Labor $ 39,645
Subtotal: $ 134,793
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
ISD Data equipment $ 100,000
Subtotal: $ 100,000
MISC
Relocation Costs $ 20,000
Subtotal: $ 20,000
Total: $ 2,658,499
Project Contingency: $ 265,850
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,924,348
Lease Costs per year $ 250,579

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 12 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Scenario 2
(3011 Airport Ave Office-Hangar/2800 Airport Ave SMC Offices) This scenario proposes a split operation on the areas currently used by “Cars with Class”, SMO aircraft tie down area, and the SMC office building at 2800 AA. The areas would accommodate; PLD supervisors, muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing rooms in a renovated “Cars with Class” office area; PLD vehicles and three conex boxes to be stored in the parking lot open to the sky; small equipment, hand tools, and equipment repair would be housed in the hangar area; bulk materials to be stored in a tent structure; and staff personal vehicles to be parked across the street on the 2800 SMC office building parking lot (37 spaces).

The ROM cost is $1,798,012 for construction and $374,600 lease per year. The timeline for this project would be 34-38 months from the actual start of the project.

Pros-
• This scenario is considered split because personal vehicles are across the street, but the PLD functions are consolidated.
• Ample interior storage space for Abel and equipment.
• Ample space for truck and equipment parking.

Cons-
• Difficult access to/from City Streets- 23rd Street/Walgrove Ave. • Minimal space for personal vehicle parking (lot only accommodates 37 vehicles).
• Minimal space for Office, locker and shower, and muster room. • Fire sprinkler water service would need to be established. • SCE upgrade for EV charging stations required The 3011 property is a former home of the Public Landscape Division. Scenario 2 contemplates combining this site with one across the street to consolidate operations.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020

PLD RELOCATION
| 13
43,848.2 sf
50'-1"
43,848 sf
9,120.4 sf
6,559 sf
2,560 sf
Inventory of existing surface area square footage, internal hangar space and office.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 14 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
This scenario contemplates using the 3011 Airport Avenue site as the base for operations, and leveraging another City-owned property across Airport Avenue as staff parking.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020

PLD RELOCATION
| 15
This diagram shows the internal configuration of the space utilizing the program requirements for PLD operations.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 16 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis

39.9 sf 108.8 sf
8'-3 1/2"10'-8"
5'-9 1/2"
232.8 sf
379.3 sf
7'-1 1/2"
9'-8 1/2"
17'-2 1/2"
12'-4 1/2"
18'-8 1/2"
20'-5"
12'-10 1/2"
24'-1"
10'-4 1/2"
Internal hangar and office space configuration of the 3011 Airport Avenue property.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 17
SCENARIO 2- 3011 AA HANGAR WITH 2800 AA PARKING LOT
Scope: 3100 AA- Tenant Improvement to existing hangar, office space and aircraft tie down area to house all PLD activities. 2800 AA- Parking lot - 37 spaces for staff personal vehicles.

Activity Notes Budget
Design
Consultant $ 107,477
Design Contingency - 15% $ 10,748
Subtotal: $ 118,224
Construction
Contractor $ 895,639
Construction Contingency - 10.0% $ 89,564
Utilities $ 400,000
Subtotal: $ 1,385,203
Project Management & Other Direct Costs
Survey $ 4,478
Geotech/Soils Consultant $ 8,956
PM/CM Consultant $ 22,391
Inspection & Labor Compliance $ 17,913
Public Works Staff Labor $ 22,391
Miscellaneous
Subtotal: $ 76,129
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
ISD Data costs $ 35,000
Telephones, Data, and Security System
Subtotal: $ 35,000
MISC
Relocation Costs $ 20,000
Subtotal: $ 20,000
Total: $ 1,634,557
Project Contingency: $ 163,456
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,798,012
Lease Costs per year $ 376,737

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 18 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Scenario 3
(2800 Airport Ave SMC office building with adjacent parking lots) This scenario proposes a consolidated operation on the areas currently used by SMC; office building at 2800 AA and adjacent parking lots to the east and west. The areas would accommodate; PLD supervisors, muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing rooms, and hand tool storage in the office building; PLD vehicles and three conex boxes would be stored in the west parking lot open to the sky; small equipment, hand tools, equipment repair would be housed in the office building warehouse; bulk materials to be stored in a tent structure on the west parking lot; and staff personal vehicles to be parked on the 2800 SMC office building east parking lot (37 spaces).

The ROM cost is $1,392,493 for construction and $355,130 lease per year. The timeline for this project would be 34-38 months from the actual start of the project.

Pros-
• Ample room at 2800 AA office building for staff requirements. • Ample room at 2800 AA warehouse for repair and indoor storage requirements.

Cons-
• Difficult access to/from City Streets- 23rd Street/Walgrove Ave. • Minimal space in the PLD vehicle lot- does not accommodate all the equipment. • Minimal space for personal vehicle parking (lot only accommodates 37 vehicles).
• Assumes that SMC will remove the modular trailer.
• SCE upgrade for EV charging stations required
2800 Airport Avenue is a City owned Airport site that is leased by SMC. The College has vacated large portions of the site, making it eligible for potential reoccupation.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 19
In this scenario, PLD would occupy a portion of the existing office building, utilize an existing small 3,974sf warehouse, occupy the modular trailer setup, and make use of the existing surface parking lot.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 20 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Layout of site with potential configuration of offies, storage, employee parking on adjacent lot, and PLD equipment and vehicle parking.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 21
SCENARIO 3- 2800 AA OFFICE BUILDING AND ADJ. PARKING LOTS Scope: 2800 AA: Tenant Improvement in the existing office building and adjacent parking lots to house all PLD activities.

Activity Notes Budget
Design
Consultant $ 91,896
Design Contingency - 15% $ 9,190
Subtotal: $ 101,086
Construction
Contractor $ 765,802
Construction Contingency - 10.0% $ 76,580
Utilities $ 185,000
Subtotal: $ 1,027,382
Project Management & Other Direct Costs
Survey $ 3,829
Environmental Consultant $ 10,000
PM/CM Consultant $ 19,145
Public Works Staff Labor $ 19,145
Subtotal: $ 67,435
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
ISD Data costs $ 50,000
Telephones, Data, and Security System
Subtotal: $ 50,000
MISC
Relocation Costs $ 20,000
Subtotal: $ 20,000
Total: $ 1,265,903
Project Contingency: $ 126,590
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,392,493
Lease Cost per year $ 355,129

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 22 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Scenario 4
(2800 Airport Ave SMC warehouse and modular trailer building with adjacent parking lots)
This scenario proposes a split operation on the areas currently used by SMC; office building warehouse, Modular Classroom Trailer and two parking lot areas. The areas would accommodate; PLD supervisors, muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing rooms, and hand tool storage to be in the renovated trailer office area; PLD Vehicles and three conex boxes to be stored in the west parking lot open to the sky; small equipment, hand tools, equipment repair would be housed in the office building warehouse; bulk materials to be stored in a tent structure on the west parking lot; and staff personal vehicles to be parked on the parking lot in front of the modular trailers (49 spaces).

The ROM cost is $1,770,619 for construction and $370,943 lease per year. The timeline for this project would be 34-38 months from the actual start of the project.

Pros-
• Ample room for personal vehicle parking and staff office needs • Ample room for repair shop and indoor equipment storage.

Cons-
• Difficult access to/from City Streets- 23rd Street/Walgrove Ave. • West parking lot shape could create challenges due to drive aisle width, PLD to investigate.
• Ownership of modular trailer (SMC or City) and how to remove a portion of the trailer to be negotiated and coordinated.
• Parking for SMC ceramics kiln building needs to be relocated/negotiated.

They could share the parking lot in front of the modular trailer. • Fire sprinkler water service would need to be established. • SCE upgrade for EV charging stations required 2800 Airport Avenue is a City owned Airport site that is leased by SMC. The College has vacated large portions of the site, making it eligible for potential reoccupation.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020

PLD RELOCATION
| 23
9,451.9 sf
20,052.4 sf
5,883.2 sf 80'-1"
SCENARIO 4
This diagram depicts use of the modular trailer and surface parking lot.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 24 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
20,052.4 sf
5,883.2 sf

STAFF PARKING
PL 3
ABEL
9,451.9 sf
225'-1"
50'-11"

RESTROOMS
225'-0"
50'-1/2"
25'-1/2"

OFFICE/

KITCHEN MUSTER LOCKER
SH/T/C
1 21
22 49
10 20
30 40
EQPT
CAGE
STOR
SCENARIO 4
The modular trailer provides more than enough space for PLD, however, it is more space than actually needed, which has cost implications.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 25
79'-11 1/2"
41,907.5 sf
SCENARIO 4
The remaining component of this scenario involves utilizing the triangular parking lot at the southern end of the site. This is generously sized, but its irregular shape creates a challenge for PLD’s larger vehicles.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 26 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Site programming diagram showing the potential location of bulk storage, equipment and vehicle parking, and other storage units.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 27
SCENARIO 4- 2800 AA- SMC TRAILER WITH ADJ. PARKING LOTS Scope: Convert existing car dealership parking lot to house all PLD activities.

Activity Notes Budget
A
Design
Consultant $ 96,096
Design Contingency - 15% $ 9,610
Subtotal: $ 105,706
Construction
Contractor $ 800,800
Construction Contingency - 10.0% $ 80,080
Utilities $ 450,000
Subtotal: $ 1,330,880
Project Management & Other Direct Costs
Survey $ 4,004
Geotech/Soils Consultant $ 8,008
PM/CM Consultant $ 20,020
Inspection & Labor Compliance $ 16,016
Public Works Staff Labor $ 20,020
Miscellaneous
Subtotal: $ 68,068
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
ISD Data costs $ 75,000
Telephones, Data, and Security System
Subtotal: $ 75,000
MISC
Site Assessment
Relocation Costs $ 20,000
Subtotal: $ 20,000
Total: $ 1,599,654
Project Contingency: $ 159,965
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,759,619
Lease Cost per year $ 370,943

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 28 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Existing Option
(2950 25th Street- Airport Maintenance Hangar/ Parking Lot/Clover Park Trailer)
This scenario provides a spit operation in the area formerly occupied by Airport Maintenance and SMPD SWAT and the Clover Park PLD/CCS office modular trailer. The PLD/CCS Modular Trailer would accommodate PLD supervisors. The Airport Maintenance Hangar would accommodate the muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing rooms, hand tool storage, and equipment repair; PLD Vehicles, personal vehicles and three conex boxes to be placed in the parking lot around the Hangar open to the sky.

The actual project cost was $1,236,317 for construction and $406,629 lease per year. The timeline for this project was 12 months and is complete and could be occupied immediately.
2950 25th Street was renovated in 2019 to accommodate the Public Landscape Division.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 29 7.A.g
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion 1685 Main Street, Room 240, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8310 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Recreation and Parks Commission
April 4, 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Memorial Park Plan/Santa Monica College Negotiations Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
At its Thursday, March 17th meeting, the Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission discussed and by unanimous vote agreed to request that you direct city staff to restart negotiations with Santa Monica College and its Board of Trustees as to when the College plans to fulfill its promise and obligation to pay “Up to $20 million dollars” from the Measure V Bond of 2016 to help pay for the Memorial Park Redesign.

We also request you or city staff provide us with an update on the progress of the above negotiations within 60 days of receipt of this letter.

In 2016, Measure V also promised $20 million to SMMUSD for the new JAMS Auditorium and did fulfill that promise, but the City of Santa Monica is still waiting for the $20 million dollars SMC promised in the same bond measure for Memorial. At the time, commissioners were assured by city officials, staff and SMC representatives that the full $20 million would go towards Memorial Park.

Negotiations between the City and College stalled in 2019, then the pandemic hit.

Thank you for your leadership and efforts to help push the Memorial Park Plan forward. It’s time.

Sincerely,
Lori Brown
Lori Brown
Chair, Recreation and Parks Commission
cc: Recreation and Parks Commission
Andy Agle, Director of Community Services Department
Jeanette Gant, Community Recreation Manager

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: ADD-TO: RPC Letter to Council re Memorial Park SMC (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Heather Baroff <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 4:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis
Subject: Agenda Item 7.A

EXTERNAL
Thank you for your attention.

As a resident of Santa Monica, I object to any joint use agreement with Santa Monica College for the pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park. During the day, Santa Monica College occupies many of the courts for classes and tennis practice leaving minimal time for residents to play pickleball. Pickleball as you know has become the fastest growing sport, and Memorial Park is now a haven for folks to get out, have fun and get much needed exercise. There are very few courts with pickleball lines in Santa Monica. Joint agreement would impinge on accessibility - when throughout Santa Monica, most courts are tennis specific. We need more pickleball courts, not less.

I have no objection to a joint use agreement for the fields or other tennis courts in the city.

Thank you for your help and understanding.

Sincerely,
Heather Baroff
2618 Arizona Ave., #3
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 7.A
09/27/22
1 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Bocanegra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 12:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; David White
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

EXTERNAL
Hello ‐‐
As a Santa Monica resident, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts. It is difficult enough as is to find space on the pickleball courts. A joint use agreement would only further make playing on the courts inaccessible. SMC already uses the courts for classes and tennis practice, leaving minimal time for residents to play pickleball.

Best,
Liz Bocanegra, M.A.

Doctoral Student in Clinical Psychology
University of California, Los Angeles
Culture and Anxiety Lab for Mental Health Advances (CALMA) Item 7.A
09/27/22
2 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Benjamin Tillis <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concer.

My name is Ben Tillis and I am a Santa Monica resident (2638 28th Street). One of the main reasons I moved from Silver Lake to Santa Monica was the proximity to Memorial Park, which has a lively, welcoming and fun pickleball community.

I am writing to say that I strongly object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts because this would further restrict the times that the very active pickleball group could play. With open play, not reserved by the college, the courts can be used for many many people, being social and staying fit. It's great for the community. Closing the courts off for use by Santa Monica College would restrict that. It would take away a huge reason why I live in Santa Monica.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Best,
Ben Tillis
[email protected]
720‐839‐6186
Item 7.A
09/27/22
3 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Lesley Bracker <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; David White
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

EXTERNAL
Regarding Agenda Item 7.A.:

As a 30 year Santa Monica resident, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park. SMC already uses the courts during what used to be public play time, which means no pickleball allowed on the only pickleball courts in the city, whereas there are plenty of other tennis courts. Memorial Park is the only pickleball court in all of Santa Monica.

I have no objection to a joint use agreement for the fields or other tennis courts in the city of Santa Monica. However, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the tennis/pickleball courts at Memorial Park.

Thank you,
Lesley Bracker
30 year resident of Santa Monica
Item 7.A
09/27/22
4 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Seth Prandini <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 11:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; David White
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A

EXTERNAL
As a Santa Monica resident, I'm writing to express my objection a joint use agreement with SMC for the pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park.

Pickleball at Memorial has completely transformed my physical and mental health. It is a thriving community and needs to be encouraged and supported by the city council. Anything that limits the public's use of Memorial Park tennis courts for pickleball is bad for the city and for its citizens.

Please vote NO on this joint use agreement.

Thank you,
Seth Prandini
Item 7.A
09/27/22
5 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Lynn Soodik <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 8:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; David White
Subject: Agenda Item 7A September 27, 2022 and in particular joint use agreement with SMC and Memorial Park master plan

EXTERNAL
Hello, I am Lynn Soodik, a long-time resident of Santa Monica (over 30 years) and a board member of the nonprofit corporation known as the Santa Monica Pickleball Club, hereinafter “SMPC”. SMPC was formed in January of this year so the public could have use of public courts to play pickleball. We have 855 members as of September 21, 2022 and we are growing weekly. We currently pay in excess of $4,000 a month to the city to reserve courts to the public to play pickleball and we would pay more if we could reserve more courts. Players don’t have to be a member to use the courts that SMPC pays the city to grant us a permit to play. If we did not pay for permits we would not be able to have the time reserved for the public. It was the only way we could get use of these public courts. Still, we don’t have enough courts and Santa Monica College and Crossroads’ use of the courts has minimized the public’s use of the Courts.

We are requesting that:

1. The City consider pickleball in the Memorial Park master plan. While you do say you want to continue to have sixteen pickleball courts/tennis courts, that doesn’t address the important issue that the pickleball public should not always be treated as second class citizens, where SMC, Crossroads and City of Santa Monica Tennis Classes always have priority and pickleball players are only allowed what is left over after the others get their first choice. What is left over is not enough! If you are not aware of the situation, the public often has only four pickleball courts (one tennis court) available for pickleball in the entire city for a continuous block of time because of the extensive use of the Memorial courts by SMC, Crossroads and the City programs that allow tennis instructors to have priority to have classes which I believe is allowed because they share revenue with the city.

While we have over 800 pickleball members there are also player that are not members of our organization that want to play on those courts. Come out on a Monday or Wednesday morning and see how few SMC players are on all three courts and how many pickleball players are on the one court we are allowed to use. Come out on Monday and Wednesday evenings and see how people are waiting 20 or more minutes to play one game. The other nights are also busy.

2. The City acknowledge that pickleball is growing and that four tennis courts is not enough for the entire city of Santa Monica even if we had exclusive use of them. Currently we only have use of them when they are not reserved, as set forth above. We would ask that you direct your staff to look into this issue.

3. The City provide pickleball courts to the public when the four tennis courts at Memorial Park are shut down for the Memorial Park Redevelopment Project. We have nowhere else to play. Your agenda recommends that you direct staff to study possible temporary relocation sites for the PLD, please instruct them to study possible relocation sites for pickleball.

Item 7.A
09/27/22
6 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 7 4. The City should stop permitting out Memorial Park to Santa Monica College and Crossroads and move the Santa Monica City classes to a different location. If the City wants to permit out courts to SMC, choose a different location.

5. While there is no objection to the City forming a joint use agreement with Santa Monica College for the fields as required by Measure V, we request that they DO NOT enter into a joint use agreement for the current and future tennis/pickleball courts at Memorial Park. I read the agenda for September 27, 2022 and the language could give readers the wrong impression of Measure V and I want to be sure no one has the wrong impression. On page 7 under “Funding” the agenda states that “[t]he contributions of College and District funding were conditioned upon programmed joint uses of the completed Memorial Park facilities.” That is not what Measure V requires. If you look under “Community Joint Use Projects” in Measure V, the language specifically states that “[t]he College will provide up to $20 million in bond funds for the expansion of the City of Santa Monica’s Memorial Park to accommodate soccer and/or other field sports for use by College students and the general public. (emphasis added.)” Your agenda implies that there needs to be a joint use agreement for the tennis/pickleball courts too and Measure V does not require the same. One could read your agenda and be under the misunderstanding that the city must have a joint use agreement for the tennis/pickleball courts to obtain funds and that is not required under the measure. SMC can play on other city courts, or they could build courts. They shouldn’t have first right to use the public courts at the expense of the public. Pickleball can’t be played on many of the City courts because they are too close to residential areas. SMC could play tennis on those courts. SMC could play at Ocean View Park where they play their matches. Crossroads could play at Marine Park. Ocean View Park has six tennis courts. While Ocean View Park may be booked, the courts are used quite a lot by tennis instructors. Why shouldn’t instructors for profit be pushed out. They are tennis businesses that run classes at public parks because they don’t have their own courts. In fact, some of these private businesses advertise the public courts as their courts! Look at the Beach City Tennis Academy and Santa Monica Tennis Academy websites. I believe tennis instructors use one-half of the available courts in the city every day. If you go to the various locations, you can see their reservations which are posted.

6. The City must address the issue of pickleball. Memorial Park is the perfect place for Pickleball since no one needs to be concerned about the noise level. We are asking that the City make all four tennis courts into pickleball courts, or if the City decides to continue to use the four tennis courts for both pickleball and tennis the City should build a pickleball center at the Santa Monica airport on the land immediately north of the dog park which is just west of Bundy. Build it to accommodate the city’s growing need for space for pickleball and make it a tourist destination and a place for tournaments to be played, which could bring in substantial revenue to the city in terms of hotel occupancy, dining and shopping.

7. As mentioned above, the City must address where pickleball players will play during the redevelopment of Memorial Park. If they started building on the Santa Monica Airport area now perhaps the courts could be finished before the courts at Memorial Park are removed. Have a master plan for a pickleball center with restrooms, water bottle filling stations, perhaps a restaurant, even if you need to build it in phases. Build two stadium courts for tournaments. Put in lighting for night.

8. Consider building pickleball/tennis courts on top of one of SMC’s parking structures for use by SMC and Crossroads for classes and tennis team practice and games while making it available to the city for city run classes in the evenings.

9. Put Pickleball on your agenda for an upcoming meeting. Don’t ignore us.

Item 7.A
09/27/22
7 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 8 For your information, on Mondays and Wednesdays, SMC has the Memorial Park courts reserved from 9:30 – 11 and 12:30 – 2. Is the gap in between classes designed to give the coaches time to provide private lessons in between classes for their own profit? Their block of time chops up the time for the community, giving the public from 8-9:30 and 11-12:30 to use courts 1, 2 and 3 in the mornings on Mondays and Wednesdays. On Tuesdays and Thursdays SMC has three courts from 11-12:35 and two courts from 12:45 – 2:05. Move SMC to another court in the city, or if you won’t do that, at least give them one block of time at Memorial Park, which I would suggest being between 1:00 pm and 3:00 p.m. to give pickleball players the morning on all four courts. Also, why does Crossroads, an expensive private school, which does not allow the public to use their swimming pool, basketball court or fields, have the courts every day from 3-5? Why is the public treated so poorly? Why do they not have priority? Why do pickleball players pay taxes for courts that they can rarely use? Why is the City Council ignoring this issue? Players can sit on a court at Memorial Park for three hours and only play three 20-minute games because of the lack of courts and the use of the public courts by the college/private schools/ private instructors etc. This is not right, and we are asking you to address this issue.

You should come to the courts in the mornings on a Monday or Wednesday and see how few SMC students occupy three courts and how packed court four is with pickleball players, as that one court is the only court in the entire city open at that time for pickleball.

I understand that everyone is clamoring for the same courts, but why does SMC and Crossroads get to exclude the public? Of the 23 public tennis courts in the city, pickleball is only allowed to be played at four, and because of the City’s continual permitting of three of these four courts to Santa Monica College, Crossroads, camps and private instructors, the courts available to play pickleball to the growing number of players is minimal
We started the non-profit club to make the activity of pickleball available for recreational play for all levels of players and at no charge. We provide equipment, we pay for permits at peak hours on the weekend and evenings, we organize round robin tournaments, and we provide pickleball instruction, with some classes limited to Santa Monica residents. We have hosted Men of Color from Santa Monica College and given them free pickleball lessons. A member has taught pickleball classes at a local elementary school. We would do more of this, but why teach children a sport where they will have no court to play on? SMPC is trying to make this city better, but we need your help.

Please address these issues. Please let me know what our group should do to get more time. Do you want hundreds of letters from our members? Do you want a petition? What do we need to do to get this issue addressed?
For now, give us at a minimum two courts at Memorial Park during the week that you do not permit out to tennis. With all the other tennis courts in the city, we are not asking for much.

Allow our organization permission to purchase nets on wheels for those two courts to stay on the court all day. They could be moved to the side if necessary. Currently we have volunteers set up the nets every morning and take them down every afternoon. Then on Mondays and Wednesday evenings volunteers set up the nets again and take them down again. When we have round robins in the evenings, we again set up the nets and take them down. It is labor intensive. We aren’t even asking the city to purchase these nets but asking that we be able to purchase them for use by the public. Everyone gets to use the courts which we permit out and the equipment we purchase, even if they are not members of the club, but still our club is ever growing! This issue is not going away. Please solve the problem before it becomes a crisis.

The language from Measure V that I have referred to is:
“Community Joint Use Projects
Item 7.A
09/27/22
8 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 9 Providing for a Joint Use Project with the City of Santa Monica. The College will provide up to $20 million in bond funds for the expansion of the City of Santa Monica’s Memorial Park to accommodate soccer and/or other field sports for use by College students and the general public. (Emphasis added)” Very truly yours,
Lynn Soodik
Item 7.A
09/27/22
9 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jessica Sklar <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 4:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; David White
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern ‐ re: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

Memorial Park is one of the few places in Santa Monica to play pickleball‐ and we share the courts with tennis that get priority already. I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts ‐ we need this space for our pickleball club (Santa Monica Pickleball Club) ‐ which allows residents of all ages, from children to elderly to enjoy a healthy, fun, community driven sport. Each tennis court has room for 4 pickleball courts, or 16 players, making the most use out of this space, with many more players on the courts, cheering and waiting. If you come to any open play time you’ll see literally over 100+ people lined up and ready to play, be healthy, socialize and enjoy our Santa Monica park space. Sharing this space with yet another organization when we have limited hours and courts already does not make sense.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jessica Sklar
Item 7.A
09/27/22
10 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Helen Ario <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 10:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Letting down the older citizens of santa monica

EXTERNAL
Im surprised with the councils regard to the tennis courts at memorial park.

The 1 court is packed with over 60 players per each morning playing pickleball. The other courts are occupied with smc students learning tennis. Possibly a max of 10 players.

The many courts available around santa monica including courts at john adams school available to smc is shameful that with so many pickleball players the city refuses to give over the memorial park courts to pickleball.

Getting the older generation to get out and excercise along with allowing them social activity should be a prime consideration of the council.

Other cities and states have created exclusive pickleball courts for its residence. Considering that Santa Monica is considered forward thinking looking to create housing for homeless and sports fields for children. The fact that the residence who are paying taxes and have been for decades are limited to borrowing 1 court to play a sport that keeps them active and social is a shameful attitide.

I look forward to rhe. COUNCIL looking closely at this issue and decide to create an exclusive center for its pickleball residences.

Regards
Helen Argyriou
Item 7.A
09/27/22
11 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Barbara Eskowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 10:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; David White
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

EXTERNAL
To The Santa Monica City Council,
I object to any joint use agreement with Santa Monica College for the Pickleball / tennis courts at Memorial Park. However, I do not object to the joint use agreements regarding the fields.

I have been a resident of Santa Monica for 15 years. I began playing Pickleball 14 months ago and it has become increasingly difficult for me and other Santa Monica residents to get a court to play in Santa Monica due to the use of these courts by Santa Monica College. While the sport is becoming increasingly popular in every city and every community nationwide, as a Santa Monica taxpayer, I am finding myself having to go to other areas of Los Angeles to play because of the Santa Monica College tennis players using the Memorial Park courts. While there are many other tennis courts in Santa Monica, this is not the case for Pickleball courts. Memorial Park is the only place where Pickleball players who are Santa Monica residents can play.

Once again, I do not object to the joint use agreements of the fields, but I do object to any joint use agreement with Santa Monica College for the Pickleball / tennis courts at Memorial Park.

Sincerely,
Barbara Eskowitz
Item 7.A
09/27/22
12 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Mara Berke <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 4:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis '[email protected]'; 'Phil Brock' <[email protected]>; 'Christine Parra' <[email protected]>; 'Lana Negrete' <[email protected]>; 'Sue Himmelrich' <[email protected]>; 'Kristin McCowan' <[email protected]>; 'Oscar de la Torre' ; 'David White' '[email protected]'; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Agenda Item 7A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

My name is Mara Berke. I am a Santa Monica resident. I was a former tennis player and now an avid pickleball player.

Please do not enter into a joint use agreement with SMC for the Memorial Courts. They are the only courts where we can play pickleball during the week. It is unfair to residents that SMC reserves two or three of the four courts on most weekdays for a few students while pickleball players are crowded into one court where we need to wait to play. SMC also does not have contiguous time leaving very small blocks of time for the public. Then they take courts again in the afternoon for their tennis team. I assume they could build their own courts or move to tennis courts where pickleball is prohibited. Please make these four courts permanent pickleball courts and keep the college off those courts. In the evenings and weekends the court is full of players of all ages. The courts in the mornings have many 50 plus players. You need to have a place for us. Also, where are we to play when you start the Memorial Park renovations? Please make pickleball a priority.

Thank you.

Mara Berke
Mara Berke
Berke Family Law
Sent from my iPhone
Please excuse any typos.

Item 7.A
09/27/22
13 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Meehna Goldsmith <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 1:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; [email protected]
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

EXTERNAL
As a resident of Santa Monica and an avid pickleball player, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts, but don’t have an issue with the going use agreements regarding the fields.

As it is, it’s hard enough to get on the courts with all the people who live here in addition to the city tennis clinics and weekday practice hours that take up 3/4 courts five days a week.

Please, do the right thing and do not allow joint use with Santa Monica College.

Best wishes,
m
Meehna Goldsmith
Mobile: 310 210 8226
Item 7.A
09/27/22
14 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Jasmyne Boswell <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 7:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

EXTERNAL
The Santa Monica Pickleball Club doesn’t object to joint use agreements regarding the fields, but we do object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the tennis/pickleball courts at Memorial Park..

Jasmyne Boswell
1347 Oak St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
808‐268‐5807
]
Item 7.A
09/27/22
15 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Stephan H. Wasserman, CPA/ABV/CFF <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 10:17 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; 'Lana Negrete'; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; 'David White'
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A

EXTERNAL
Hello‐
I have been a resident and homeowner in Santa Monica for over 25 years. I believe this is my first complaint to the city. You need to acknowledge the growing number of pickleball players, both young and old, both fit and not so fit who love the sport. In Santa Monica, Memorial Park is the only place we can play. I know that is in large part due to the noise of the game. It doesn’t make sense why you permit out the space to Santa Monica College, Crossroads and private tennis instructors who teach tennis classes? I object to any joint use agreement with SMC or anyone else. If you must share courts with SMC why not choose a location where it is not crowded with pickleball players? Why can’t they play on the courts where they play their matches? Why do you let tennis instructors rent courts in the city when you can move Crossroads or SMC to those courts? It makes sense to turn Memorial Park into a pickleball only venue or build pickleball courts at the Santa Monica airport or somewhere else. You should not put SMC before the public but if you go to the courts on a weekday morning it is clear you do. I also object to a plan to redo Memorial Park unless you have a plan for where pickleball will be played during the construction. Please note Pickleball is the fast growing sport in the country. When you look at allocation of public resources, Pickleball is a no brainer compared to Tennis. Each tennis court typically services 2 players at a time. Whereas one tennis court can be used for 4 pickleball courts where a total of 16 players can be playing. It is time to recognize the Santa Monica residents are demanding access to Pickleball courts and to address the issue.

Thanks
Item 7.A
09/27/22
16 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 5 Stephan Wasserman
Stephan H. Wasserman, CPA/ABV/CFF | Managing Partner
Litigation Services
GURSEY | SCHNEIDER LLP
1888 Century Park East, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
P: 310.552.0960 | F: 310.557.3468 | www.gursey.com
An Independent Member of DFK International
This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use or dissemination of this message, or attachments, is strictly prohibited. Any tax advice expressed in this communication by Gursey | Schneider LLP should not be construed as a formal tax opinion unless expressly stated. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it.

Item 7.A
09/27/22
17 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Sharon Hearn <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 11:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members
I am a longtime resident and homeowner in Santa Monica and would like to express my objection to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park.

Pickleball is a wonderful sport, easy to play and appealing to all age groups, with physical and emotional health benefits for the community. Pickleball is an aerobic sport; since I started playing pickleball in January of 2022 I have lost weight and my A1C (diabetes blood sugar indicator) level has come down significantly.

As pickleball continues to grow rapidly in popularity, availability of the courts at Memorial Park is extremely important in keeping pickleball accessible to all.

Sincerely,
Sharon Hearn
Homeowner
1323 Maple St., Santa Monica 90405
Item 7.A
09/27/22
18 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Nick Bicanic <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 6:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; [email protected]; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

EXTERNAL
As a Santa Monica resident, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts because there are no dedicated pickleball facilities in Santa Monica and there more people wanting to play than there are courts available every single day. It's the fastest growing sport in the US for the fifth year running.

By all means come to Memorial Park on any given weekday and see all the people that live locally lining up to play pickleball. On most days well over 100 people are waiting.

Compare that to tennis on any given day and I challenge you find any court where there are more than 4 people on average per court.

In actuality there should be some tennis courts converted to permanent pickleball use - but if we're not gonna do that - then absolutely there should be NO JOINT USE agreement.

Not to mention that there is nowhere for people to play while Memorial Park is being renovated.

Last (but not least) the lights should be fixed.

Nick Bicanic
Item 7.A
09/27/22
19 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Grace Benn <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 8:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item 7A Sept 27 2022 Joint Use Agreement with SMC and Memorial Park Master Plan

EXTERNAL
My name is Grace Benn and I’m the Vice President of the Santa Monica Pickleball Club (SMPC) a non-profit organization dedicated to creating and growing the inclusive community of pickleball players in Santa Monica.

We are requesting that the city of Santa Monica not form a joint use agreement for the current and future use of Memorial Park tennis courts. People want to be playing pickleball in Santa Monica. We desperately need more court space and the joint use agreement unfairly prioritizes tennis over pickleball at Memorial Park.

SMPC formed in January of this year and quickly grew to over 850 members of all ages, ethnicities, and income. Our numbers increase weekly which tracks with the current trend of pickleball being declared the fastest growing sport in America.

The good news is that so many Santa Monica residents are taking up the sport and engaging in this healthy, social, outdoor activity. The unfortunate news is the lack of court space. Currently, pickleball is only allowed to be played at Memorial Park and we are unable to accommodate all the players due to courts being reserved by SMC, Crossroads, and City of Santa Monica Tennis Camps/Classes. As a non-profit, we are able to reserve courts at a cost and currently pay over $4000/month. We’d love to reserve many more hours, but unfortunately priority is given to those other non-paying entities.

Santa Monica only allows pickleball at Memorial Park, yet we are unable to play on those courts for much of the day due to unfair reservation policies which favor those entities. One tennis court fits four pickleball courts.

Typically, our courts are all doubles games. So one tennis court easily accommodates 32 players; 16 playing, 16 waiting. Currently due to the lack of courts, we often have 48-64 players per tennis court vying for play time.

The number of pickleball playing adults displaced from utilizing the courts at Memorial Park grossly outweighs the number of SMC students, Crossroads students, city tennis camp or private class participants. Please help us address this inequality.

SMPC provides free Open Play for anyone. We provided paddles and balls if needed. None of these other entities do that. Pickleball can be played by people of all ages; multi generations can play together. SMPC is open to everyone; are these other groups providing the same reach of age, ethnicity, income etc? SMPC is inclusive and welcoming to all players of all levels. Isn’t this what Santa Monica is all about? Inclusive, welcoming, and healthy? Santa Monica has a unique opportunity to be the SoCal destination for pickleball players, but we need to act. We need dedicated courts.

Item 7.A
09/27/22
20 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 2 Additionally, we are requesting Santa Monica act now to proactively determine where pickleball will be played during the redevelopment of Memorial Park. We recommend building pickleball specific courts at the Airport Park facility in the current parking lot north of the dog park.

Thank you very much for considering our requests. We invite all council members to join our Open Play sessions. We provided paddles, balls, and instruction; come see what’s taking America by storm! Regards,
Grace Benn
Vice President SMPC
Item 7.A
09/27/22
21 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Robert Elbinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 2:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; [email protected]; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; David White
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A / Don't reduce Pickleball

EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council:

The City has a shortage of places/times to play Pickleball.

I am informed that at the upcoming City Council meeting there will be a recommendation to provide direction to staff to re-engage Santa Monica City College in negotiations regarding joint use of the pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park.

As you may know, during the day, Santa Monica College occupies many of the courts for classes and tennis practice, leaving minimal time for residents to play pickleball.

Please don't take any action that could reduce Santa Monica residents access to pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park.

Respectfully,
Robert Elbinger
By Robert Elbinger
2628 Kansas Ave. Unit 1
Santa Monica, CA 90404
cell phone (310) 279-2109
fax (310) 453-7032
e-mail [email protected]
Item 7.A
09/27/22
22 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Theresa Abrook <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan; [email protected]; David White
Subject: Agenda item 7. A

EXTERNAL
To all it may concern:

I am a long time Santa Monica resident and enthusiastic Pickleball player. I strongly object to the joint use of the Pickelball/tennis courts with SMC.

These courts are really the only location currently used in Santa Monica for Pickle players of all ages, gender and socio‐ economic backgrounds.

I know of many other tennis courts within close proximity to SMC…Ocean View Park, Clover , Marine and Reed to name just a few, none of which are painted/marked for Pickleball. Surely there must be an equitable solution for us all. The growth of Pickleball has been well documented, as a strong sports and health minded community let’s not get left behind!
Thank you for your consideration.

Theresa Abrook
Sent from my iPad
Item 7.A
09/27/22
23 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ben Kiel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; 'Lana Negrete'; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; David White
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

EXTERNAL
Hello, folks,
First time reaching out, but going on year eight as a resident of Santa Monica, and wanted to weigh in on the pressing and momentous issue of. . . pickleball.

I started playing at Memorial Park a little over a year ago - it's very convenient to where I live on Cloverfield and Pico. In that time, I've seen the community grow exponentially. The lines to play games have consistently gotten longer and longer, and people are arriving earlier, staying later, and playing all days of the week. And this is a special community. Unlike most sports, pickleball is great exercise and community for all types of ages, classes, and social groups.

For example, the youngest person with whom I've played games was 10, and the oldest was a couple aged 89 and 92. Additionally, the group of volunteers who supports the open play with set up, take down, beginner lessons, etc., continues to grow, and the Santa Monica Pickleball Facebook group, which had around 1,000 members when I started last year, is up to almost 3,500 as of today.

It's an incredible phenomenon, and one that the city should do everything it can to support, maintain, and expand.

It is for these reasons that I write to request that the city reject any joint-use agreements with SMC or other organizations for use of the tennis courts at Memorial Park.

Additionally, I feel like I read a few years ago that there would be a Memorial Park renovation - is it possible to include pickleball courts as part of the renovation? Also, what are the plans to provide pickleball courts for use during the renovation?
Thanks!
Ben
2207 Cloverfield Blvd.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A
09/27/22
24 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Lynn Bowers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 1:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; David White; Oscar de la Torre; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda item 7.A

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members‐ As a long time Santa Monica resident and member/supporter of the Santa Monica Pickleball Club, I strongly object to to any joint use agreement with Santa Monica College for the pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park (Agenda item 7.A) Santa Monica College occupies many of the courts for classes and tennis practice, leaving minimal time for residents to play pickleball.

I, and I understand the board of the Santa Monica Pickleball Club, has no objection to a joint use agreement for the fields or other tennis courts in the city.

Pickleball is one of the fastest growing sports in America, encompassing a wide spectrum of age groups. It is affordable, easy to learn and easy to play, attracting a variety of people. It brings together and is a common bond for community members, which in this time of some division in our communities and in our country, I think can be seen as a good thing.

Memorial Park is a wonderful place to play Pickleball and Santa Monica residents who play should be able to count on regular hours and multiple courts for Pickleball. A joint use agreement with Santa Monica College will greatly affect the hours and number of courts where Santa Monica residents can play Pickleball.

Thank you for your consideration.

Lynn Bowers
240 34th St.

Santa Monica, 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A
09/27/22
25 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Sharon Friedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 2:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; David White
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A - Santa Monica Resident

EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
As a Santa Monica resident of 3 years, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts. As a resident of the neighborhood, I'd like to have more time available to play at our courts. The courts today are crowded today as they are and residents should be able to play at their courts. I don't object to joint use agreements for the fields, but do object to this for the pickleball/tennis courts.

Thank you,
Sharon Friedman
1247 11th St, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Item 7.A
09/27/22
26 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Karen Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 2:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; '[email protected]; Gleam Davis
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.

EXTERNAL
Hi City Council,
As a Santa Monica resident, I object to a joint use agreement with Santa Monica College for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park because Santa Monica College occupies many of the courts for classes and tennis practice, leaving minimal time for residents to play pickleball.

I have no objection to a joint use agreement for the fields or other tennis courts in the city.

Thanks,
Karen Chen
Item 7.A
09/27/22
27 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Alicia Cortrite <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 5:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; David White
Subject: Agenda Item 7.A.

EXTERNAL
I have lived in Santa Monica for 35 years and my husband has lived here for over 50 years. We raised our children here in Santa Monica schools, both worked for the city for a total of 62 Years, and have been very active in the community. It absolutely baffles me that, of all cities, our progressive city of Santa Monica can't see the importance of the sport of pickleball. As many, many people have told you over the past few years, it is a game that is far more inclusive than tennis and a far better use of space. Tennis players have courts all over the city. Pickleball players have a single location to play and, increasingly, the City is renting out these courts to SMC and Crossroads School. They have the money to build their own courts. So let them. And now taking these courts away for a number of years to build a parking structure for still‐shared courts on the roof? This simply isn't good planning. Would you take all of the tennis courts in the city away from tennis players? All of the soccer fields away from soccer players? All of the basketball courts away from basketball players? How possibly can this make sense?
Pickleball is becoming so popular for a reason...and that's what so many other cities are seeing. With the demographics that Santa Monica holds, it's simply a matter of time before you all realize that the city needs designated pickleball courts. It is a perfect sport for all ages but it holds for each age group certain unique benefits. For kids and older adults alike, it is a sport that can be played successfully by an ace athlete, a non‐athletic type or an aging body. Kids need to feel successful and not be the one left as the "last one picked." Older adults need to socialize and, if you have never been down to Memorial Park on a weekend, I beg you to come see what this community socializing looks like. It has huge health benefits, not just because of the exercise but because of the community and camaraderie it holds. For older adults living alone, it is a new lease on life. Everyone is always welcome.

Please take a moment to realize that it's time for Santa Monica to embrace pickleball rather than ignoring it. Its popularity isn't going to go away and I would hate for my city, the city my family loves, to miss the boat. Thank you all for the time that you put into this work. I know you've all been invited before but I'll say it again: Come join us any day of the week to see what all of the buzz is about!
Item 7.A
09/27/22
28 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Julie Roback <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Memorial

EXTERNAL
I am a long time Santa Monica resident (28 years) and a tennis player and Pickleball player. I have fallen in love with pickleball and love going to open play at memorial! My dream would be that Santa Monica had a fully dedicated pickle area that would be an amAxing way to bring more tourists to our city! Th recent news that memorial is considering providing smc more time and the rest of us residents get left with having to leave the city to enjoy the sport. Make memorial exclusively for pickle and not for the college to usurp!!! Please!!! Or put some lights at ocean view courts! Begging you not to take our pickle courts away at memorial!!!! Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A
09/27/22
29 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Steve C <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Memorial park

EXTERNAL
I write to address the proposal to restart the expansion of Memorial Park.

I am a member of the Santa Monica Pickleball Club, which consists of over 2000 dedicated and passionate members who regularly meet to engage in the type of friendly and engaged communion that many thought impossible amongst strangers in this day and age. The tear down of the courts, which could leave the club with no courts for years, is of substantial concern. It would destroy the community and break apart something that is truly unique and special in Santa Monica and even Los Angeles.

The plan to create shared courts on a rooftop is, while I am sure well intended, a measure that will neither avoid the dissolution of a robust community but also present its own problems in terms of play. Players need more space than the rooftop will provide between the service line and the wall and your plans will potentially lead to injuries and collisions.

I implore you to rethink the restart of expansion plans. I know they are well intended but at what cost will these improvements be made? For the thousands of members of the club, yeas of lost opportunity for strangers to get to know one another, for seniors to have an outlet to exercise and socialize, for old and young to engage in friendly competition with one another…it is a loss that is truly difficult to measure especially without seeing what the community has done for people’s lives.

Item 7.A
09/27/22
30 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Sam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Concerning Memorial Park Community and Pending Park Construction

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am a Santa Monica resident, parent of two kids at SaMoHi, and a frequent user of Memorial Park. It has been a blessing over the last few years of Covid to have recreation and community at this park.

In this time an amazing, supportive, diverse, and very large community has formed at Memorial Park and I fear that the outdated construction plans for this park does not take into account the sizable negative impact that this pre‐covid way of thinking will have on this thriving park community.

First, I am at this park frequently and the baseball fields are often empty. They are not at full capacity by any means, and yet additional baseball capacity is what the plan is for this park. How does this, and the multiple additional soccer fields planned for the airport, remotely close to considering a balanced recreational opportunity for all SaMo residents using SaMo tax money? The answer, It is not!
Yes, I am a Pickleball player. When I first moved to Santa Monica I was told by many friends in the area about the "cult" that meets at Memorial Park on Saturday mornings. Fanatics who spend hours hitting a wiffle ball. After some hesitation I gave it a try, and instantly understood the love. Stand up pingpong, that I can play using my retired racquetball skills, against division 1 tennis player half my age. Not a cult! Total fun! After 20 years of being a couch potato and dad of two, I became an athlete again. I am more fit now at the age of 49 than I have ever been in my life to this point thanks to Memorial Park and the "Pickleball cult".

But if you are on the outside to Pickleball then you probably don't understand the scale of this "new" sport. Here are some local facts and figures for you to consider in order to gain some respect for the state of Pickleball today.

According to pickleballtournaments.com, the keeper of all things related to Pickleball events, over the last 12 months ending on 9/26/22.....
 1090‐ Total number of tournaments in the USA
 138‐ total number of tournaments in California
 51‐ Total number of tournaments in the LA extended metro area (Santa Barbara to Oceanside, east to Morongo Valley)
 10,755‐ number of individual registrations to the LA regional tournaments  $478,000‐ total amount of professional prize money offered at LA regional tournaments.  $738,150‐ Total amateur tournament registration fees collected at LA regional tournaments. (this is the minimum, not all events reported final player numbers)
Community facts:
 1st Primetime CBS Pickleball broadcast was from Riviera Country Club on 8/12/22  3400‐ Number of members of the Santa Monica Pickleball Facebook group.  859‐ Current number of Santa Monica Pickleball Club members (is this the largest sports community in SaMo??) Item 7.A
09/27/22
31 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 2 And a few focused data points about Newport Beach Tennis & Pickleball club, one of the few local LA venues that has fully embraced Pickleball regionally.
 9‐ Total number of tournaments hosted in last 12 months  4492‐ number of individual registrations to these events  $175,000‐ total amount of professional prize money offered at their events  $394,220‐ Total amateur tournament registration fees collected at Newport Pickleball events. (this is registration fees only, events have additional bracket fees on top of this)  31‐ Total number of Pickleball Courts at this club
 $12,717‐ Per court tournament registration fees collected over last 12 months.

Backup data can be found here: Google Sheets
Do we really need to "sell" Pickleball to Santa Monica at this point? With sizable revenue numbers, explosive regional growth, and a massive local community size shouldn't the city be asking us how to get into the game and not the other way around? Do we really need to "save" Pickleball in Santa Monica in this day and age? I ask the City Council to please fully consider the impact that the outdated Memorial Park renovation plan will have on the current thriving Memorial Park community when deciding if and how to move forward with this park's renovation. It is also time for Santa Monica City Council and Santa Monica Parks to show the love and support to the local Pickleball community that it deserves by fully embracing the opportunities that are Pickleball instead of treating it like a second class citizen to be tolerated and pushed to the side.

Show some love and we will give back in multiples!
Sam McAfee

Item 7.A
09/27/22
32 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 9/27/22 agenda item 7-A - concern over where to relocate the Public Landscape Division

EXTERNAL
Agenda item 7-A -- Memorial Park

1) In looking at the last alternative for relocating the Public Landscape Division, 2950 25th Street, please be aware that this location is right across a very narrow street from Homes in Sunset Park on the west, and right next to the Clover Park below-grade ball fields on the east.

2) In looking at all the alternatives on the Airport campus, don't understand why the City has to "lease" City-owned land.

Zina Josephs

"Existing Option (2950 25th Street- Airport Maintenance Hangar/ Parking Lot/Clover Park Trailer) This scenario provides a spit operation in the area formerly occupied by Airport Maintenance and SMPD SWAT and the Clover Park PLD/CCS office modular trailer. The PLD/CCS Modular Trailer would accommodate PLD supervisors. The Airport Maintenance Hangar would accommodate the muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing rooms, hand tool storage, and equipment repair; PLD Vehicles, personal vehicles and three conex boxes to be placed in the parking lot around the Hangar open to the sky. The actual project cost was $1,236,317 for construction and $406,629 lease per year. The timeline for this project was 12 months and is complete and could be occupied immediately." Item 7.A
09/27/22
33 of 33 Item 7.A
09/27/22

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 9.A
1 of 25
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Deny Application to Designate 305 San Vicente as a City Landmark
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Deny Appeal 20ENT-0247, appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision to deny the designation of the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark; and

2. Deny Designation Application (20ENT-0119) to designate the property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark based on the findings contained in this report.

Summary
On April 27, 2020, the Appellant, H. Joseph Soleiman submitted Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0015 on behalf of Mid Century SV LP, owner of the property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. The application materials included an historic assessment report that was prepared for the subject building by Audrey von Ahrens of GPA Consulting (GPA). (Attachment B). The GPA report concluded that the “building is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica City Landmark under Criterion 5 as a significant and representative example of the work of notable architect, Samuel Reisbord”, and did not analyze whether the property met any of the other six Landmark criteria set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section 9.56.100(A).

9.A
Packet Pg. 331
2 of 25
At the request of the City, and due to a change in process precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Ostashay and Associates Consulting (OAC) prepared a Peer Review Assessment of the GPA report. (Attachment C). The OAC Peer Review Assessment concluded that the property does not appear to be eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark under Criterion 5. Staff evaluated the Appellant’s materials, including the GPA Report, as well as the OAC Peer Review Assessment and recommended the Commission deny the application to designate the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a Santa Monica Landmark.

On October 12, 2020, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing to discuss the property’s potential eligibility as a Landmark under the criteria set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance. For consideration in making its decision, the Commission was presented with evidence, including the Appellant’s application materials and materials presented by GPA, oral testimony from GPA, the OAC Peer Review Assessment, the analysis and recommendation included in the oral and written staff reports, and all public correspondence received prior to and during the hearing. The materials can be found on the Landmarks Commission’s agenda for the October 12, 2020 meeting (Item 10-C), and the Landmarks Commission meeting agenda is attached (Attachment J).

9.A
Packet Pg. 332
3 of 25
After consideration of all the evidence and full discussion, the Landmarks Commission determined that the property does not meet any of the designation criteria for the property to be designated a City Landmark and denied the application for designation.

On October 22, 2020, the Appellant, on behalf of the property owner, Mid Century SV LP, filed a timely appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision to deny the application for designation (Appeal 20ENT-0119), attached.

The appellant makes three primary arguments to support its appeal: 1) the application was held to a new and different standard than other applications to designate a Landmark because the City did not obtain a full historic assessment of the property prior to the Landmarks Commission’s hearing; 2) public comments in support of the designation application were not considered; and 3) the Peer Review Assessment prepared by OAC contains inaccurate statements about the information included in the nomination application.

Staff has reviewed the Appellant’s three primary claims:
• The designation process was conducted in a manner consistent with the Landmarks Ordinance and emergency procedures in place at the time. • The comments Appellant claims were omitted from oral public comment were forwarded to the Commission and posted online prior to the meeting in a manner consistent with procedures in place at the time.
• The statements Appellant claims were inaccurate are supported by the record.

With the appeal, the Appellant submitted a second historic assessment dated December 30, 2020 that was prepared by GPA. In the updated/additional analysis, GPA found the property eligible under four criteria for designation as a City Landmark:
• Criterion1, as an important example of its type;
• Criterion 2, as having aesthetic interest;
• Criterion 4, as embodying distinguishing characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern style; and

9.A
Packet Pg. 333
4 of 25
• Criterion 5, as a significant example of the work of notable architect Samuel Reisbord.

As with the assessment that was submitted with the application materials, the City requested that OAC provide a peer review of the updated GPA assessment. OAC conducted a thorough analysis including:
• Reviewed the initial landmarks Designation application; • Reviewed the City’s Landmark Designation Criteria, various ordinances and survey updates;
• Reviewed all the materials considered at the October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission hearing;
• Conducted additional research on the property history; • Reviewed relevant National Park Service (NPS) guidance; and • Analyzed the assessment report and findings included in the GPA updated assessment.

Based on the materials submitted by the Appellant with the application and the appeal, including the GPA assessments, the analyses provided by OAC, evidence received prior to and during the Commission’s public hearing on October 12, 2020, staff recommends that Council 1) deny the appeal; and 2) deny the application to designate the property a Landmark.

Background
Historic Resource Designation Application
The applicant (property owner) for the designation application submitted information to support designating the property located at 305 San Vicente as a City Landmark under criterion SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(5), “It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect” as part of their April 27, 2020 application.

9.A
Packet Pg. 334
5 of 25
After the appeal was filed, GPA provided a revised/additional assessment, dated December 30, 2020. The revised assessment found that the property is eligible under four of the six criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.56.100(A): 1, 2, 4, and 5. The appeal/revised assessment asserts that the property is an important example of its type (1), has aesthetic interest (2), embodies distinguishing characteristics of the MidCentury Modern style (4) and is a significant example of the work of notable architect Samuel Reisbord (5).

Upon close analysis, the property appears to have undergone significant changes after the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, and therefore does not retain sufficient integrity to embody the characteristics described in the GPA report. Further, if the property remained fully intact, it would not necessarily be a representative or exceptional example of its type, style, possess aesthetic merit of its style, or represent a significant example of the work of a notable architect.

City of Santa Monica Landmark and Historic District Ordinance Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) 9.56
Adopted in 1976, the stated purpose of the City’s Landmark and Historic District Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) is:
[T]o promote the public health, safety and general welfare by establishing such procedures and providing such regulations as are deemed necessary to:

A. Protect improvements and areas which represent elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history.

B. Safeguard the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in such improvements and areas.

C. Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past.

D. Protect and enhance the City’s aesthetic and historic attractions to residents, tourists, visitors and others, thereby serving as a stimulus and support to business and industry.

E. Promote the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historic Districts for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of this City.

9.A
Packet Pg. 335
6 of 25
The ordinance further establishes procedures and standards intended to achieve these purposes. Among these procedures, the SMMC grants the Landmarks Commission the power to designate Landmarks and Structures of Merit. The Commission has the option to designate an improvement as a Landmark or Structure of Merit to allow the City to protect and enhance improvements that are found to meet certain criteria to support either designation. Currently, there are 136 designated City Landmarks, 14 designated Structures of Merit, and 5 Historic Districts within the City.

To guide the exercise of discretion by the Landmarks Commission in designating Landmarks and the Council in approving or disapproving the actions of the Landmarks Commission, SMMC 9.56.100(A), sets forth six Landmark Designation Criteria:
[T]he Landmarks Commission may approve the landmark designation of a structure, improvement, natural feature, or an object if it finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

9.A
Packet Pg. 336
7 of 25
In accordance with the Landmarks Ordinance, the City Council reviews the Commission’s designation of a Landmark, as well as any related decisions de novo when an appeal is filed. The Council may review and take action on all determinations, interpretations, decisions, judgments or similar actions taken that were in the purview of the Commission, and the Council may approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove the prior determinations and decisions of the Commission.

Property Information and Architectural Description
The building, constructed in 1961, is rectangular in plan and organized around a courtyard with a swimming pool in the front setback. While the building contains details in the courtyard that are well-designed, the building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is of simple design and construction primarily clad in stucco with simple stucco and metal railings, and aluminum windows.

The GPA materials (application and assessment) identify the building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as designed in the Mid-Century Modern style. The Mid-Century Modern style was prevalent in the Los Angeles region from the 1930’s through the 1970’s and has experienced a resurgence in popularity over the past 10-15 years.

There are many fine examples of Mid-Century Modern architectural design in singlefamily residential structures. Multi-family structures tend to be primarily characterized by the simplicity of features and construction.

The subject building exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, popular from the 1950’s thru the 1970’s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low/simplified style that takes some characteristics of the “classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. The smooth stucco surfaces, clean rectilinear volumes, aluminum frame flush set windows, slider balcony doors, floor-to-ceiling glazing, integrated parking, flat roof with light wells, and the insular stark aspect of the elevated interior courtyard is typical of this style.

Figure 1: Photo of Subject Property

9.A
Packet Pg. 337
8 of 25
Property History/ Integrity Evaluation
An original key design element of the building along its primary façade featured rows of long, wide geometric fascia boards set as decorative trim at every floor level that spanned the entire front of the building and horizontally connected the balconies and engaged plastered planter boxes in a linear rhythm. This notable design feature; however, is no longer extant on the building, but for the single remaining fascia board trim at the front eave. The loss of this key stylistic feature has greatly impacted the architect’s original Mid-Century Modern design intent, as shown in the original perspective, below.

Figure 2: Original Rendering of Subject Property
In reviewing the original rendering for the building obtained from the Architecture and Design Collection, Design & Architecture Museum at the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) campus as well as the extant fascia board at the front eave line, this unusual architectural feature added some stylistic distinction to the building’s overall design composition and gave some street presence to a rather mundane, typical

9.A
Packet Pg. 338
9 of 25
façade. A review of the permit history on file with the City indicates this series of decorative fascia trim boards was most likely damaged and removed following the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Immediately after the earthquake the City’s emergency response teams began conducting building inspections throughout the community. The building and subterranean parking area of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building were inspected by the City for structural soundness on January 19, 1994. Notes on the “Rapid Evaluation Safety Assessment Forms” completed by the City’s structural engineer stated the building had severe cracking of walls with obvious severe damage and distress. The property was then “yellow” tagged for limited entry. On February 1, 1994, the building was re-inspected with field notes that stated the anchor bolts on the building had bent and displaced the south (front) wall. The “ornamental wall face at front of building” was also noted as having cracked sufficiently enough to expose additional anchor bolts (this is probably when the “ornamental face” aka geometric fascia boards were removed). The assessment report also notes that the front balcony slabs had displaced, but posed no immediate hazard. Upon concluding the second inspection, the building was issued a “green tag” and in the coming months was stabilized and repaired, as required.

Unfortunately, the extensive seismic repairs made to those areas of the building visible from the public rights-of-way visually and physically impacted the original Mid-Century Modern stylistic design intent as envisioned by its architect Samuel Reisbord. The front elevation at grade level is now dominated by an offset paved area for parking, the driveway leading into the parking garage, and the nondescript solid curving brick wall that encloses the swimming pool from the street. The side and rear elevations of the structure still have planar, unornamented wall surfaces that are punctuated by flush set aluminum sliders and recessed balconies with simple metal rails. In consideration of the prior alterations made to the exterior of the building, its original appearance, and its current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. OAC’s peer review states, and staff agrees, that the property’s historical integrity of design, material, workmanship, and feeling has also been affected. Therefore, the property does not appear to maintain all aspects of integrity. Below are the aspects of integrity:

9.A
Packet Pg. 339
10 of 25
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

While the property has maintained its location and setting, its design, materials, feeling and association have been significantly compromised.

Architect Samuel Reisbord
The GPA report states that the “building is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica City Landmark under Criterion 5 as a significant and representative example of the work of notable architect, Samuel Reisbord.” However, as the initial OAC peer review found, and staff agrees, that while Mr. Reisbord was a prolific architect whose collaborative work spanned three decades, he does not appear to be a “notable architect” in Santa Monica or the larger Los Angeles region. And while his work has been archived at UCSB, it does not necessarily correlate that Mr. Reisbord was notable, as the collection is expansive, including many California architects over many decades.

Typically, to be identified as a notable or “master” figure in a field (architect, builder, designer, engineer, landscape architect, craftsman artist, etc.), the person is generally

9.A
Packet Pg. 340
11 of 25
recognized because of his or her consummate skill whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality. Depending on the sphere of geographic influence a notable person may be recognized locally for their quality of design and skill or on a broader scale at the state or national levels (such as Frank Lloyd Wright). While Mr. Reisbord was a prolific architect during this period, it does not appear that he was a leader or innovator, or made significant contributions to architecture or the architectural heritage of the local community or elsewhere. As stated in the OAC report(s), there are seven known buildings designed by Mr. Reisbord in Santa Monica, and it does not appear that they should be considered significant or representative works by the architect. If the exterior of the subject property had not been significantly altered, it’s possible it would be a representative example of Mr. Reisbord’s work. However, the building has been altered and does not represent the work of Mr. Reisbord, even if he were to be considered a notable architect.

Historic Context San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District As with much of Southern California and Los Angeles County, Santa Monica’s population skyrocketed during and after World War II. The Douglas Aircraft manufacturing plant in Santa Monica employed thousands of local residents from the 1940’s into the postwar years. Following the war, the RAND Corporation provided employment for hundreds of Santa Monica residents in the fields of mathematics, aerodynamics, engineering, physics, chemistry, economics, and psychology. As housing demands quickly exceeded supply, courtyard apartment complexes replaced smaller multi‐family dwellings and the remaining single‐family residences along San Vicente Boulevard.

Santa Monica’s population boom in the postwar era prompted the restructuring of the City’s zoning ordinance to allow for higher density, multi‐family residential development.

Changes to Santa Monica’s zoning ordinance were further provoked by the rejection of an application for the construction of a 120‐unit apartment building on San Vicente Boulevard in 1952. Through the 1950s, a contentious battle ensued between

9.A
Packet Pg. 341
12 of 25
homeowners who opposed multi‐family residential development in their neighborhoods, and developers who looked to profit from higher density construction.

By 1960, the block of San Vicente Boulevard between 4th Street and 7th Street was zoned R3, Multiple Residential, limiting buildings to 45 feet (roughly four stories); the block between 4th Street and Ocean Avenue was zoned R4, limiting building height to 12 stories. In 1975, due to concern for the “quality of life” for residents living in areas zoned R3 and R4, new height restrictions enforced a 40‐foot (roughly three story) height limit in R3 zones and a 6‐story height limit in R4 zones. Both R3 and R4 zoning required minimum setbacks and a certain amount of private open space per unit. By the 1970s, condominiums had surpassed lower density courtyard apartments as the most prevalent form of multi‐family housing along San Vicente Boulevard. Today, the District comprises courtyard apartments, apartment houses, and condominiums, dating from the late 1930’s to the mid‐1990’s. The area is currently zoned R2, Low Density Multiple Residential, and building heights are limited to two stories.

The San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District was designated a Historic District by the City Council in 2015. Its period of significance is defined as buildings constructed between 1937 and 1956. As the subject property was constructed in 1961, it is outside the period of significance and therefore a non-contributor to the Historic District.

Landmarks Commission Action
The application was submitted shortly after Federal, State and local declarations of emergency were issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, due to actions taken to promote social distancing, the deadlines for reviewing and taking action the application were extended and the public hearing was conducted remotely. Further, due to the devastating impacts of the pandemic on the City’s budget, rather than obtaining a separate historic assessment to evaluate of the application, City staff obtained a peer review of the materials Appellant submitted with its application.

9.A
Packet Pg. 342
13 of 25
Specifically, due to measures taken to implement social distancing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, deadlines for reviewing and acting on applications governed by SMMC Article IX, including processing timelines for applications to designate a City Landmark, were suspended in accordance with the Revised Fourth Supplement to the Executive Order Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency (“Executive Order”).

The deadlines were subsequently tolled and then extended for two years under subsequent supplements to the Executive Order due to the continuation of measures to implement social distancing requirements, including the closure of City Hall and other City facilities, that resulted in unavoidable delays in the City’s processing of planning and permit related applications. In accordance with those supplements to the Executive Order, the deadlines for the Landmarks Commission to review and take action on the application were automatically extended.

From the time the application was filed until the matter was heard by the Landmarks Commission, the Landmarks Commission’s meetings were governed, in part, by provisions of Executive Order N-29-20, issued by the Governor on March 17, 2020, which suspended the Brown Act requirements for teleconferencing, provided that notice and accessibility requirements were met, the public was allowed to observe and address the legislative body at the meeting, and the legislative body had a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, specifying that this suspension would remain in place during the period in which state or local public health officials have imposed or recommended social distancing measures.

Prior to the COVID-19 public health emergency, although not expressly required by the Landmarks Ordinance, the City’s standard practice was to obtain an historic resource assessment for every designation application at the City’s sole cost. Applicants could elect to submit their own assessments, which were considered by both City staff when preparing a recommendation to the Commission, and the Commission when making a determination.

9.A
Packet Pg. 343
14 of 25
With the devastating and unprecedented impacts to the local economy and the City’s budget caused by the COVID-19 public health emergency, the City became unable to obtain historic assessments at its own cost. On June 23, 2020, the City Council amended the application fees for designating a property as a City Landmark to include the cost of obtaining an historic assessment. This allowed the City to obtain an historic assessment of a property for which a designation application had been filed at the applicant’s cost.

However, the Appellant submitted its application prior to this change in fees, and during a time when the City’s budget did not permit for obtaining an historic assessment for the property that analyzed all six Landmark criteria. Accordingly, the City elected to obtain a more cost-effective peer review of materials received from the applicant in order to complete its evaluation of the property and make a recommendation to the Landmarks Commission for consideration. Other similarly situated applications were also evaluated through the peer review process.

On October 12, 2020, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing to discuss the property’s potential eligibility as a Landmark. The Commission was provided with the designation application materials which included GPAs original evaluation and OAC’s peer review, as well as the staff report and written public correspondence that was either provided prior to the meeting or read into the record during the hearing.

In consideration of all evidence, including written and oral testimony from representatives for the Appellant, oral and written staff reports, historic preservation consultant reports, and any other materials introduced into the public record, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard.

The audio recording of the October 12, 2020 meeting is posted on the City’s webpage:
http://santamonica.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=4578.

On January 11, 2021, in accordance with SMMC 9.56.120(H), the Landmarks Commission adopted a Statement of Official Action (Attachment F) setting forth the findings to support its decision.

9.A
Packet Pg. 344
15 of 25
Appeal
On October 22, 2020, the Appellant filed a timely appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision. The appellant makes three primary arguments to support its appeal: 1) the application was held to a new and different standard than other applications to designate a Landmark because the City did not obtain a full historic assessment of the property prior to the Landmarks Commission’s hearing; 2) public comments in support of the designation application were not considered; and 3) the Peer Review Assessment prepared by OAC contains inaccurate statements about the information included in the application materials.

The Appellant’s materials include an historic assessment prepared GPA dated December 30, 2020 that analyzed whether the property was eligible for designation as a City Landmark under all six of the Landmark criteria. In the updated/additional analysis, GPA found the property eligible for designation under four criteria for designation as a City Landmark: Criterion1, as an important example of its type; Criterion 2, as having aesthetic interest; Criterion 4, as embodying distinguishing characteristics of the MidCentury Modern style; and Criterion 5, as a significant example of the work of notable architect Samuel Reisbord.

Appeal Analysis

1. Application for 305 San Vicente was held to a new and different standard due to process changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Appellant argues that the application for designation of 305 San Vicente as a City Landmark was held to a new and different standard because the designation process changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the City did not obtain an historic assessment that analyzed the property’s eligibility under all six Landmarks criteria. As discussed previously, staff did not solicit an independent assessment by a historic preservation professional to evaluate the property against all six landmarks criteria due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the City’s budget.

9.A
Packet Pg. 345
16 of 25
However, the Landmarks Ordinance does not require that such a report be obtained by the City as part of the designation process. Rather, SMMC 9.56.120(C) requires staff to “conduct an evaluation of the proposed designation and shall make a recommendation to the Commission as to whether the improvement merits designation.” While the City did not obtain an historic assessment that analyzed each of the six criteria under the Landmarks Ordinance, staff did conduct an evaluation of the proposed designation and made a recommendation to the Landmarks Commission based on the information provided in the application and the OAC Peer Review Assessment of the application materials, including the contention that the property was worthy of designation because of its association with Samuel Reisbord, a notable architect.

Additionally, for the appeal that is before the Council, staff has conducted a full evaluation of additional materials that were submitted by the property owner. And, staff further evaluated information received from the City’s consultant, OAC, who conducted a peer review of the appeal materials and also obtained original renderings and performed an analysis of the building permit history including an analysis of historic integrity of the subject property.

Staff’s evaluation of the application and appeal materials is consistent with the provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance, and the Landmarks Commission’s decision to deny the application for designation was based on substantial evidence presented to staff and the Commission. Nonetheless, Council has been presented with additional evidence for consideration on appeal.

2. Public comments, including multiple letters of support, were not properly considered during the Landmarks Commission’s hearing.

Consistent with Executive Order N-29-20, all written correspondence received by noon the day of the meeting was posted online and forwarded to the Commission.

Any correspondence received after noon on the day of the meeting was read into the record during the hearing. At the time of the hearing, instead of receiving “real time”

9.A
Packet Pg. 346
17 of 25
oral public comment, the Commission was accepting “real time” written public comment. Members of the public could submit written comments to be read into the record during the hearing in addition to any comment that was received after noon the day of the meeting.

The correspondence identified by the Appellant was received prior to noon on the day of the meeting. In accordance with the procedures in place at the time, the comments were sent to the Landmarks Commissioners for their review prior to the meeting and were not read into the record at the meeting. Therefore, the correspondence was treated according to the protocols for public comment in place since the start of the pandemic, which were consistent with Executive Order N-29-

20. 3. OAC’s peer review contains inaccurate statements.

Appellant argues that the Peer Review Assessment provided by OAC, which analyzes the materials provided in the designation application, contains inaccurate information. The Peer Review Assessment concluded that certain statements contained in the GPA report submitted with the initial application are not fully supported by evidence.

In the additional information provided by GPA on appeal, there appears to be explanation of why this supporting evidence was not included with the initial application materials, and the Appellant has provided additional information.

However, the statements made by OAC in the initial peer review were not inaccurate. For example, the OAC peer review states that:
“…upon reviewing the application’s statement of architectural significance, there is question as to identifying Samuel Reisbord as a notable architect within the city…At this time, there is no analysis or discussion as to how Reisbord, whose office was located in Los Angeles, was accomplished in his field and made

9.A
Packet Pg. 347
18 of 25
contributions to architecture or the architectural heritage of the local community or elsewhere”
The initial application outlines Samuel Reisbord’s career, identifying several wellknown architects he worked with. However, the initial application does not include a substantive argument as to the importance of his contributions to the field of architecture or the local community. While GPA might disagree with this statement, and others included in the OAC report, the Appellant’s assertion that the OAC peer review contains inaccurate statements is not supported by the record GPA provided information regarding the property in the initial application, and it was not a full assessment. Initial applications are not required to be full assessments.

Similarly, the peer review report by OAC was not a full assessment and focused on the information included in the initial application. OAC provided a peer review of the initial application, based on the information included in the application materials.

The subsequent assessment by GPA dated December 30, 2020 provided grounds for the appeal and additional information regarding the subject property. Additional information was provided as part of the assessment received as part of the appeal, that in part, responded to OAC initial peer review comments. OAC also provided a peer review of the GPA assessment.

Eligibility as Landmark Designation and Proposed Findings To designate a property as a City Landmark, the Landmarks Commission, or the Council on appeal, is required to find that the property meets one or more of the six criteria set forth in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and discussed in detail below.

The City hired OAC to provide a peer review of the GPA historic assessment provided by the appellant/property owner. Based on the findings as provided in the OAC peer review report, the consultant finds and staff agrees that the property does not appear eligible as a Landmark under the City of Santa Monica Landmark as outlined below.

The following draft findings are provided to support this conclusion:

9.A
Packet Pg. 348
19 of 25
Criterion 1
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

The property does not exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history or development of Santa Monica.

The altered apartment building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, completed in 1961, is one of numerous multi-family residential properties constructed in the postwar period to meet the demand for housing. The design rationale for these ubiquitous postwar multifamily buildings was to provide inexpensive housing using mass-produced building materials. The subject property was part of a trend that was occurring at the time, not only in Santa Monica, but elsewhere throughout Southern California and beyond. The subject property itself was not the impetus for this trend nor was it a seminal representative of large-scale, multi-family postwar development. As such, the building is not an early, rare, or excellent example of its type or of multi-family residential development within the City. It, along with many others in the community, represents a continued and popular residential development pattern in the post-World War II period within the City. Although the construction of the property is associated with City’s postwar development period, it cannot be said that this single building alone exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests a pivotal multi-family residential development pattern of history in the City. Further, the apartment building has undergone notable modifications to its primary (front, south) façade thereby impacting its historical integrity of design, workmanship, material, and feeling. Therefore, it does not accurately sufficiently convey its original design intent to fully and accurately exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the economic, social, or architectural history of the City.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 1.

9.A
Packet Pg. 349
20 of 25
Criterion 2
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

The subject property does not possess sufficient aesthetic interest or value to render it eligible under Criterion 2. Because of the elevated design of the apartment building and the internal configuration of the courtyard area above street level it is further removed from the public realm and not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley.

Further, the courtyard space does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design as to consider having any notable aesthetic or artistic value to the community.

As the podium style Stucco Box apartment building typology from the early 1960’s was designed and built in many communities throughout Southern California it is possible that other internal courtyards with elevated open corridors and integrated planters exist. As for the overall building itself, it lacks any appropriate aesthetic or artistic interest and value necessary for designation under Criterion 2.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 2.

9.A
Packet Pg. 350
21 of 25
Criterion 3
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

No evidence was provided to suggest that any of the prior owners or occupants of the property were persons of significance or made significant contributions to important events in local, state, or national history.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 3.

Criterion 4
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

Because of its common exterior design attributes and the loss of original decorative trim features on the front of the structure, the 305 San Vicente Boulevard building appears ineligible for designation under Landmark Criterion 4. It was built during the postwar period, when quick and cost-effective construction was valued to meet the unprecedented demand for housing at that time. As such, the materials and methods used are common to postwar buildings in Santa Monica and throughout the region. The subject property, like many others of this type and period, would not individually be valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or craftsmanship nor would it be considered a rare or unique example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type. From a stylistic perspective, the exterior of the building does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design. From the public right-ofway, it appears to be a typical example of its respective style and is constructed of commonly used materials.

The subject property exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous and rather common podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950’s,

9.A
Packet Pg. 351
22 of 25
1960’s, and early 1970’s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style that takes some characteristics of the “classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. In consideration of the building’s ordinary and ubiquitous appearance, alterations made to the front of the building, and its current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. In addition, many of its extant design features, such as the entry lobby and staircase, open courtyards, open-air bridging corridors (walkways), integrated planters, fenestration, and front entries to the apartment units, are integrated internally within the core of the structure and are not visible from the public right-of-way.

As the interior courtyard features (along with many other aspects of the building) are not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley they do not have the capacity to elicit any positive (or negative) value or response when experienced by the general public.

The apartment building is neither a unique or rare example of its type and design and as such is not considered valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or architecture. There are many other similar extant examples of this typology and style.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 4.

Criterion 5
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

The architect of record for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building as listed on the original permit is Samuel Reisbord (1904-1985). This property is also included in the archives of the Samuel Reisbord Papers, a collection of his architectural work and associated ephemeral material held at UCSB. Samuel Reisbord is recognized for his prolific work in designing a multitude of apartment buildings throughout the Los Angeles region. His designs covered a broad range of projects and included office buildings,

9.A
Packet Pg. 352
23 of 25
schools, tract homes, private residences, public housing, motels and hotels, and community centers, as well as apartment buildings. Reisbord had a very diverse and long career and was a prolific architect. However, he was not a leader or innovator and did not substantially contribute to the canon of architecture.

Reisbord’s professional portfolio locally included the design of at least seven known apartment buildings in the Santa Monica area that spanned three decades (1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s). The subject property is one of those extant examples; however, it does not represent a significant or prominent portion of his career as an architect. With the removal of the original Mid-Century Modern style geometric fascia board trim that was once set horizontally at each floor level of the primary (front) elevation and with the lack of visibility into the building’s interior courtyard area the structure visually and physically “reads” (from the public right-of-way) as a rather typical, undistinguished apartment building with limited, if any, street presence. The property, though designed by Reisbord, is not a significant or prominent example of his work, nor is it a truly intact representative example of his work associated with his prolific career.

If the exterior of the subject property had not been significantly altered, it’s possible it would be a representative example of Mr. Reisbord’s work. However, the building has been altered and does not represent the work of Mr. Reisbord, even if he were to be considered a notable architect.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 5.

Criterion 6
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(6). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

The subject building is a non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District, sitting in the middle of the block at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. It does

9.A
Packet Pg. 353
24 of 25
not have a unique location or singular physical characteristic and is not an established or familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 6.

At its October 12, 2020 meeting, the Landmarks Commission denied the designation of the property commonly known as 305 San Vicente Boulevard. Staff agrees that the property does not merit designation and recommends the City Council deny the appeal and deny the Landmark designation based on the findings set forth above and contained in the draft Statement of Official Action, attached.

Alternative Actions
As an alternative to the recommended action, the City Council may consider the following if supported by the full evidentiary record:

1. Articulate alternative findings, approving the subject appeal and approving the subject property as a Landmark.

California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency disapproves. Based on the recommended action, CEQA would not be applicable.

Alternative Findings
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approving the appeal and designating the property as a Landmark will result in any significant effect on the environment. This determination is based on the record as a whole, which includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the designation of the property as a Landmark will promote the retention and preservation of historic resources, the designation would not result in any physical change to the property, and any future physical changes would be subject to subsequent CEQA review.

9.A
Packet Pg. 354
25 of 25
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of the recommended action.

Prepared By: Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA B. 305 San Vicente City Council Appeal notice
C. 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application
D. 20ENT-0247 (305 San Vicente Blvd) APP Application
E. SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 F. STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial
G. GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced H. SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc
I. 10-12-2020 LC Minutes
J. Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020
K. Written Comment

9.A
Packet Pg. 355
1 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION

OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF

THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK
DENIAL OF A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 20ENT-0247 LOCATED AT 305 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD

AS A CITY LANDMARK
SECTION I. On April 27, 2020, the property owner, H. Joseph Soleiman representing Mid Century SV LP, filed a nomination for the multi-family residential building located on the subject property for the property to be considered for designation as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on October 12, 2020 hereby finds that the subject building located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not meet one or more the of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100. On October 22, 2020, the property owner, MID CENTURY SV LP, filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s determination. The City Council, on appeal, having held a Public Hearing on May 10, 2022 hereby denies the designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark based on the following findings:

SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

The altered apartment building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, completed in 1961, is one of numerous multi-family residential properties constructed in the postwar period to meet the demand for housing. The design rational for these ubiquitous postwar multi-family buildings was to provide inexpensive housing using mass-produced building materials. The subject property was part of a trend that was occurring at the time, not only in Santa Monica, but elsewhere throughout Southern California and beyond. The subject property itself was not the impetus for this trend nor was it a seminal representative of large-scale, multi-family postwar development. As such, the building is not an early, rare, or excellent example of its type or of multi-family residential development within the City. It, along with many others in the community, represents a continued and popular residential development pattern in the postWorld War II period within the City. Although the construction of the property is associated with City’s postwar development period, it cannot be said that this single building alone exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests a pivotal multi-family residential development pattern of history in the City. Further, the apartment building has undergone notable modifications to its primary (front, south) thereby impacting its historical integrity of design, workmanship, material, and feeling.

Therefore, it does not accurately sufficiently convey its original design intent to fully and accurately exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the economic, social, or architectural history of the City.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 1.

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark 2 SMMC 9.56.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

According to the guidance from the National Park Service (NPS), “a property is eligible for its high artistic value if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible; however, it if does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.” the subject property does not possess sufficient aesthetic interest or value to render it eligible under Criterion 2. Because of the elevated design of the apartment building and the internal configuration of the courtyard area above street level it is further removed from the public realm and not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley. Further, the courtyard space does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design as to consider having any notable aesthetic or artistic value to the community.

As the podium style Stucco Box apartment building typology from the early 1960s was designed and built in many communities throughout Southern California it is possible that other internal courtyards with elevated open corridors and integrated planters exist. As for the overall building itself, it lacks any appropriate aesthetic or artistic interest and value necessary for designation under Criterion 2.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 2.

SMMC 9.56.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 3. (SMMC 9.56.100(a)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark 3 not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design. From the public right-ofway, it appears to be a typical example of its respective style and is constructed of commonly used materials.

The subject property exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous and rather common podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style that takes some characteristics of the “classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. In consideration of the building’s ordinary and ubiquitous appearance, alterations made to the front of the building, and its current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. In addition, many of its extant design features, such as the entry lobby and staircase, open courtyards, open-air bridging corridors (walkways), integrated planters, fenestration, and front entries to the apartment units, are integrated internally within the core of the structure and are not visible from the public right-ofway. As the interior courtyard features (along with many other aspects of the building) are not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley they do not have the capacity to elicit any positive (or negative) value or response when experienced by the general public.

The apartment building is neither a unique or rare example of its type and design and as such is not considered valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or architecture.

There are many other similar extant examples of this typology and style.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 4.

SMMC 9.56.100(a)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

The architect of record for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building as listed on the original permit is Samuel Reisbord (1904-1985). This property is also included in the archives of the Samuel Reisbord Papers, a collection of his architectural work and associated ephemeral material held at UCSB. Samuel Reisbord he is recognized for his prolific work in designing a multitude of apartment buildings throughout the Los Angeles region. His designs covered a broad range of projects and included office buildings, schools, tract homes, private residences, public housing, motels and hotels, and community centers, as well as apartment buildings. Reisbord had a very diverse and long career, and was a very prolific architect.

However, he was not a leader or innovator and did not substantially contribute to the cannon of architecture.

Reisbord’s professional portfolio locally included the design of at least seven known apartment buildings in the Santa Monica area that spanned three decades (1950s, 1960s, 1970s).5 The subject property is one of those extant examples; however, it does not represent a significant or prominent portion of his career as an architect. With the removal of the original Mid-Century Modern style geometric fascia board trim that was once set horizontally at each floor level of the primary (front) elevation and with the lack of visibility into the building’s interior courtyard area the structure visually and physically “reads” (from the public right-of-way) as a rather

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark 4 typical, undistinguished apartment building with limited, if any, street presence. The property, though designed by Reisbord, is not a significant or prominent example of his work, nor is it a truly intact representative example of his work associated with his prolific career.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 5.

SMMC 9.56.100(a)(6). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

The subject building is a non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District, sitting in the middle of the block at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. It does not have a unique location or singular physical characteristic and is not an established or familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 6.

SECTION ll. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately reflect the final determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica on May 10, 2022 as determined by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record of the proceedings relating to this designation. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark 5 particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

Respectfully Submitted
May 10, 2022
Sue Himmelrich, Mayor
Attest:

Stephanie Reich,
Landmarks Commission Secretary

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 20ENT-0247 Appeal of Denial of Designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark
APPLICANT: H. Joseph Soleiman
PROPOERTY OWNER: MID CENTURY SV LP
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:

Appeal 20ENT-0247 of the Landmarks Commission’s determination to deny Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0119 of the multi-unit residential property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark.

DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2022 AT 6:30 PM
LOCATION: City Council Chamber, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT:

The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. Members of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the public hearing via email to [email protected] or via mail to City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Room 102, Santa Monica, California 90401. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be available for online viewing. All written comments shall be made part of the public record. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments.

You may also comment in person at the City Council hearing. Please check the agenda for more detailed instructions on how to comment in person.

Address your comments to: City Clerk
Re: Appeal: Denial of Designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
VIA MAIL: 1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, 90401
MORE INFORMATION: If you want more information about this project, please contact Stephanie Reich at (310) 458-2200 ext. 5460, or by e-mail at [email protected]. For disability-related accommodations, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or (310) 917-6626 TDD at least 72 hours in advance. Every attempt will be made to provide the requested accommodation. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines serve City Hall and the Civic Center area. The Expo Line terminus is located at Colorado Avenue and Fourth Street, and is a short walk to City Hall. Public parking is available in front of City Hall, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.

ESPAÑOL : Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-2275.

9.A.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: 305 San Vicente City Council Appeal notice (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San City Planning Division (310) 458-8341
Planning and Community Development Department www.smgov.net 09/18
CITY OF SANTA MONICA – CITY PLANNING DIVISION

DESIGNATION APPLICATION
Landmark Structure of Merit
Applications must be submitted by appointment at the City Planning public counter, Room 111 at City Hall, located at 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. To schedule an appointment or if you have any questions completing this application please call City Planning at (310) 458-8341. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS:

Land Use Element District: Zoning District:

Assessor Parcel: - - Lot Size:

APPLICANT
Name:

Address: Zip:

Phone: Fax:

Email:

Address: Zip:

Phone: Fax:

Subject improvement is generally known as:

Existing use(s) of site:

Rent control status:

Status: Occupied Unoccupied
Recognized in the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory: Yes No Condition: Excellent Good Fair Deteriorated Ruins Unexposed Threats: None Private Development Vandalism
Public Works Project Zoning Other:

This part to be completed by City staff
Received By: Amount Paid: $
Date Submitted: Check No.:

NOTES TO

APPLICANT
Please complete all
applicable sections
of this application
and submit all
required materials.

Incomplete
applications will not
be accepted for
filing.

Landmarks
Commission meets
on the second
Monday of each
month.

The applicant,
representative, or
legal owner familiar
with the project must
be present at the
Landmarks
Commission
meeting.

A decision on
designation is
rendered at the
hearing. All
decisions by the
Landmarks
Commission are
subject to a 10-day
appeal period. An
official appeal form
and fee schedule is
available at the City
Planning Division
Public Counter.

Appealed projects
will be scheduled for
a hearing before the
City Council.
305 San Vicente Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90402
Low Density Housing R2
4293 002 015 22,391 sq ft
H. Joseph Soleiman
(310) 770-5199
[email protected]
CONTACT PERSON (if different) (Note: All correspondence will be sent to the applicant) Name: Audrey von Ahrens, Architectural Historian II, GPA Consulting Address: 617 S. Olive Street, Suite 910, Los Angeles, CA Zip: 90014 Phone: (310) 792-2690 Fax:

Email: [email protected]
Relation to Applicant: Historic Preservation Consultant

PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
(310) 770-5199
Multi-family residence
Rental
Registered
X
X
X
X
X
2800 Olympic Blvd. Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90404
ex. 125
Mid Century SV LP
2800 Olympic Blvd., Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90404
20ENT-0119
Scott Albright 851.90
04/27/2020

9.A.c
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

Page 2 ends

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 27, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
September 27, 2022