39 1. Direct the City Attorney to return to Council by the next regularly scheduled 40 meeting with a resolution amending the Rules of Order and Procedure for the 41 Conduct of City Council Meetings and repealing Resolution Number 11630 and 42 any other resolution or ordinance necessary to effectuate the following:
43 1.1. Changes to the below rules:
44 1.1.1. Rule 10. Powers and Duties of Presiding Officer. Add 45 nomenclature and rules for spoken titles and references inclusive of 46 the following changes:
47 1.1.1.1. Prohibit the use of the term “Vice Mayor” in lieu of the Charter 48 position Mayor Pro Tempore.
49 1.1.1.2. Clarify that the Councilmember serving in the position of 50 Mayor Pro Tempore shall be referenced as, and use the title 51 of, “Councilmember,” unless actively serving in the capacity of 52 the Presiding Officer during the Council meeting, or acting in 53 lieu of the Mayor in a public forum in the event of disability or 54 extended absence of the Mayor (e.g. representing the City in 55 the official capacity of Mayor while the Councilmember 56 formally serving as Mayor is on vacation, hospitalized, or 57 unable to be reached with reasonable notice, for example). In 58 these instances, the Councilmember serving in the position of 59 Mayor Pro Tempore may use the title and be referenced as 60 such. When possible, the Mayor shall notify the Council, City 61 Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk of their temporary 62 vacation of duties and assumption of responsibilities by the 63 Mayor Pro Tempore, with advance notice and when they 64 expect to return to full service.
65 1.1.2. Rule 12. Rules of Debate.
66 1.1.2.1. Add a total time limit of ten minutes that each Councilmember 67 may speak on an agenda item, with exceptions for asking 68 questions of introducing Councilmembers (both questioners 69 and respondents) or staff. The ten minutes may be used at 70 once or may be apportioned across debate of an item. If the 71 proposing Councilmember does not save a portion of their 72 time to avail themselves of their privilege of final comment in 73 accordance with Rule 12, Section (f), the Councilmember 74 forfeits their privilege to final comment. This proposed rule 75 shall have the ability to be extended at any time by a 2/3rds 76 vote of the Councilmembers present, and such an extension 77 must apply to all Councilmembers when granted.
78 1.1.2.2. Add a rule that a Councilmember Point of Personal Privilege 79 may not exceed one minute in length.
16.M.a
Packet Pg. 1704 Attachment: 20241217 16 Item - Council Rules - Hall Torosis Raskin (6812 : Amend Council Rules) 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS DAN HALL, ELLIS RASKIN, AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE CAROLINE TOROSIS – UPDATE THE RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE
80 1.1.3. Rule 13. Protest Against City Council Action. Add a rule that a 81 Councilmember’s protest statement in opposition may not exceed 82 five minutes in length.
83 1.1.4. Rule 15. Public Testimony. Add a rule that limits Councilmembers 84 to two minutes for any proclamation or commendation (not inclusive 85 of reading the resolution or certificate) and any honoree to two 86 minutes.
87 1.1.5. Rule 19. Voting Procedure. Modify rule for appointments to any 88 committee, board, commission, or equivalent to replace vote process 89 with instantaneous run-off, rank choice voting. Councilmembers may 90 each nominate any applicants they wish to see in consideration. 91 From the dais, Councilmembers shall then rank any nominated 92 applicants they deem fit to serve. Councilmembers shall not be 93 required to rank all nominated applicants. Applicants that fail to 94 receive a nomination shall not be voted on. If only one applicant is 95 nominated, the nominee shall be considered appointed. 96 1.1.6. Rule 28. Adjournment. Remove 11 p.m. limit on new items. 97 1.2. New rules proposed that may either be included in the Rules of Procedure 98 for the Conduct of City Council meeting or separate resolution or ordinance, 99 as appropriate:
100 1.2.1. Resolutions on International Affairs. Add a rule prohibiting the 101 consideration of resolutions regarding international affairs, except for 102 items of support or condolences for natural disasters or other similar 103 tragedies involving Santa Monica’s sister cities.
104 1.2.2. Censure. Add a rule that allows Council, through a majority vote, to 105 formally censure a Councilmember for violation of the law, local 106 ordinance, common law conflicts of interest, or Council rules or 107 resolutions.
108 1.2.3. Use of the City Seal and Other City Symbols. Prepare an 109 ordinance prohibiting the use of the City Seal, official City symbols 110 (e.g. City logo), and facsimiles of City Hall, the Public Safety 111 Administration Building, the Civic Auditorium, the Santa Monica Pier 112 and Pier Sign, Airport Terminal, City owned vehicles (e.g. Big Blue 113 Bus, Police Car, Fire Engine, or Ambulance), or other publicly owned 114 and prominently recognizable buildings or structures on any clothing 115 item, accessory, and paid political advertising advocating for or 116 against the election of candidates or items before Council for all 117 Councilmembers, with the exception of City-provided nametags, 118 items, or accessories, or apolitical 501(c)(3)s such as the Santa 119 Monica Pier Corporation or the Santa Monica Conservancy. This 120 ordinance shall be crafted as such to not prohibit the City or City 121 Departments or sub-divisions thereof, as determined by the City
16.M.a
Packet Pg. 1705 Attachment: 20241217 16 Item - Council Rules - Hall Torosis Raskin (6812 : Amend Council Rules) 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS DAN HALL, ELLIS RASKIN, AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE CAROLINE TOROSIS – UPDATE THE RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE
122 Manager, City Attorney, or City Clerk (or Rent Control Agency 123 Executive Director), from creating team gear or items with any of the 124 above.
125 1.2.4. Gifts. Prepare a resolution prohibiting the acceptance of:
126 1.2.4.1. Gifts greater than the amount of $100 in one event or 127 cumulative $590 per year; this limit shall increase in 128 accordance with the FPPC’s CPI adjustment annually. An 129 exception shall exist for gifts received from family members or 130 long-standing friends with whom gifts are regularly exchanged 131 as defined by the FPPC’s guidance on family members. An 132 additional exception shall exist for Councilmembers attending 133 events comped as invited guests of an organization in their 134 official capacity as representatives of the City that are also 135 open to the general public.
136 1.2.4.2. Meals, beverages, snacks, or refreshments greater than the 137 approximate price of a cup of coffee or bottle of water, except 138 as would be provided to any member of the public (e.g. a 139 promotion or discount), or as part of a program of events or 140 conference where the Councilmember is representing the City 141 in their official capacity and all participants receive similar 142 treatment regardless of elected status or jurisdiction (e.g. hors 143 d'oeuvres served at a conference networking cocktail hour). 144 2. Direct the City Clerk to make any appropriate and necessary changes to comply 145 with the above direction.
146 3. Direct the City Manager to make any appropriate and necessary changes to 147 comply with the above direction.
148 # # #
16.M.a
Packet Pg. 1706 Attachment: 20241217 16 Item - Council Rules - Hall Torosis Raskin (6812 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16M support
EXTERNAL
It's great to see our new councilmembers hit the ground running on conducting the city's business.
I'm sure this is not news to any of the councilmembers, but reading the section of this item on the city seal, I feel compelled to point out in the public record that an ordinance with the same restrictions on the use of the city seal has on the books since 1986, city code section 2.32.020. It's quite clear that councilmembers and city employees cannot individually do things like have shirts with the city seal made, wear them as leisure wear in their personal lives, or use city vehicles bearing the city seal as campaign floats. I applaud the councilmembers for bringing attention to this issue and seeking to address it, but simply enforcing the existing ordinance would seem to be sufficient to achieve the goal of 16M section 1.2.3.
2.32.020 Use of the City Seal.
(a) The purpose of this Section is to restrict use of the City Seal to official City business. (b) The City Clerk shall have charge of the City Seal and shall affix the City Seal to all certificates required by law, by this Code, or by ordinance of the City.
(c) Except as provided for in this Section, no person, other than the City of Santa Monica, shall reproduce, use, give away, sell, or distribute any seal, or facsimile thereof, purporting to be or represented to be the City Seal of the City of Santa Monica. (d) City officers, City employees, members of the City Council, and members of City Boards and Commissions, may use stationery and printed materials with the City Seal, or facsimile thereof, while acting within the scope of their office or employment.
(e) No person, including any elected officer of the City, shall use the City Seal, or facsimile thereof, in any correspondence or other printed materials distributed in favor of or against any ballot measure or in favor of or against any candidate for public office.
(f) A recognized employee organization may use the City Seal, or facsimile thereof, on stationery and printed materials used in the scope of its representation of City employees and on articles of clothing intended for use by City employees.
(Prior code § 2601; amended by Ord. No. 1363CCS, adopted 3/25/86) (The origin of this 1986 code amendment, which I was not aware of until looking up the exact language of
2.32.020 to copy-paste into this email: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-03-06-we16145-story.html) Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
16.M.b
Packet Pg. 1707 Attachment: Written Comments (6812 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Sirinya Matute <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Support 16M (especially related to city logo + seal) Attachments: Draft Ordinance.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and the City Council:
I am writing to express my general support for Item 1.2.3 of Item 16M, which would direct City staff to prepare an ordinance to prohibit the use of the City logo, seal and facilities of city facilities and vehicles on any clothing item, accessory or paid advertising for or against the election of candidates or items before the Council, with a carve out allowing city staff to use said logos to create team gear or items.
An ordinance to update our municipal code discusses the City Logo & City Seal is way overdue. For starters, discussion of the seal and logo should be in one place, but in our code it's scattered in two:
the City Seal is mentioned in section 2.32.10 and 2.32.20, while the city logo is referenced in a section 4.68 on community events, where the code makes it ‘unlawful’ for a community event permittee to use the city logo - that's it. No mention of what the logo looks like, no mention of other allowable and disallowed uses, and definitely no specification of penalties for misuse or unauthorized uses of the City logo.
Thankfully the City trademarked its logo decades ago, no small feat. This created standing for the city to protect its brandmarks from infringement in court. But trademarking has been insufficient for the City to protect its seal or logo or emblems from misuse - nor does it establish penalties for infringement. This needs to be codified in the municipal code through a new ordinance.
I recommend that the ordinance:
Consolidate discussion of the City Seal, City Logo, and facsimiles of City Buildings in one place in the municipal code. This makes it easier to find and understand. Expand the scope of protection: The code should explicitly include the City Logo and other official emblems or insignia (such as the city’s iconic buildings, the Pier, and city vehicles), in addition to the City Seal.
Establish clear penalties: The code should outline specific penalties for unauthorized use of the City’s brand elements beyond stating “unlawful”.
Appoint a custodian: The municipal code should specify that the City Clerk (or designee) is the custodian for both the City Seal and City Logo, responsible for overseeing their use and enforcing the relevant regulations.
City staff still need to be able to use the city logo for its official communications. The language of
1.2.3 doesn’t make that distinction, though.
Hermosa Beach’s experience with taking steps to take control of its city seal and logo (which had rampant misuse in the community for decades) can provide valuable insights for Santa Monica. You can study the section on city branding in their municipal code here or at https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/hermosabeach-ca/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-55.
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
16.M.b
Packet Pg. 1708 Attachment: Written Comments (6812 : Amend Council Rules) 2 This staff report from 2023 might also be useful background.
Lastly, I have attached a sample ordinance passed by the Hermosa Beach City Council in March 2023, which further strengthened the city’s ability to protect its brandmarks.
By taking these steps, the City of Santa Monica can safeguard its valuable brand assets and ensure that they are used in a manner that reflects positively on the City.
Thank you for your time and consideration and happy holidays! Sincerely,
Sirinya Matute
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
16.M.b
Packet Pg. 1709 Attachment: Written Comments (6812 : Amend Council Rules) ORDINANCE NO. 23-____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 1.06 (OFFICIAL SEAL AND LOGO OF THE CITY) OF TITLE 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE HERMOSA BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE THE USE OF CITY INSIGNIA AND
FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
A. The City of Hermosa Beach (“City”) recognizes the importance of developing unique graphics and branding to reinforce the City’s distinctive identity.
B. Chapter 1.06 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes regulations for the use of its official City Logo and City Seal.
C. In addition to its logo and seal, the City has expended significant time and resources in designing and developing other “City Insignia” that includes logos, marks and emblems used by the City for City business to identify official City events and programs.
D. The City desires to amend its Municipal Code to protect against the replication and unapproved use of City Insignia by adopting regulations pertaining to its use similar to the City’s existing regulations pertaining to its City logo and seal.
E. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the City’s police powers under Article 11, section 7 of the California Constitution.
SECTION 2. Custody And Use Of The City Seal, Logo And City Insignia. The title of Chapter 1.06 of the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: “Chapter 1.06 “Custody and Use of the City Seal, Logo and City Insignia”.
SECTION 3. City Insignia. Section 1.06.025 “City Insignia” is hereby added to read as follows:
A. “City Insignia” means in addition to the City Seal and City Logo as designated by the City Council, any other logos or emblems Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
16.M.b
Packet Pg. 1710 Attachment: Written Comments (6812 : Amend Council Rules) depicting or including the City of Hermosa Beach, as approved by the City Manager.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to make, reproduce, manufacture, display, or use City Insignia, or any design so closely resembling the same as to be apt to deceive or be reasonably mistaken for in any way City Insignia for any purpose other than for official city business, a city-sponsored event or program, or a city-endorsed event or program, without approval of the city council.
SECTION 4. Manufacture And Sale Of Souvenir And Decorative Items. Section
1.06.050 “Manufacture and sale of souvenirs and decorative items” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a person from manufacturing or selling non-documentary objects, such as souvenirs or decorative items, bearing the city logo or city insignia as part of the design; provided, that such person undertakes such activity pursuant to agreement with the city, approved by the city council, containing such requirements and limitations as the city council shall deem appropriate to assure that such use of the city logo and city insignia is in good taste and in the best interests of the city of Hermosa Beach.
SECTION 5. Use of City Seal, Logo and Insignia for Political Campaigns. Section
1.06.060 “Use of city seal and logo for political campaign prohibited” is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 1.06.060 “Use of city seal, logo and insignia for political campaign prohibited”
“No person or campaign committee shall use the city seal, logo, insignia or its design or any design so closely resembling the same as to be apt to deceive or be reasonably mistaken for in any way for the city seal, logo, or city insignia for purposes of supporting or opposing the nomination or election of any person to any city or other public office, or for purposes of supporting or opposing any ballot measure, nor include such city seal, logo or insignia on any writing distributed for purposes of influencing the action of the electorate, or any part thereof, in any election. This section shall not be applicable to writings issued by the city of Hermosa Beach or the city council as a whole pursuant to law.
SECTION 6. Custodian Of City Seal, Logo, And Insignia. Section 1.08.070 “Custodian of city seal and logo” is hereby renumbered and amended to read as follows:
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
16.M.b
Packet Pg. 1711 Attachment: Written Comments (6812 : Amend Council Rules) Section 1.06.070. “Custodian of city seal, logo, and insignia” “The city clerk of the city of Hermosa Beach shall be the official custodian of the of the City seal, logo and other City insignia.
SECTION 7. Penalty. Section 1.08.080 “Penalty” is hereby renumbered to read as follows:
Section 1.06.080 “Penalty”
SECTION 8. All other sections of Chapter 1.06 of the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code shall remain unchanged.
SECTION 9. Environmental Review. The City Council finds that adoption and implementation of this ordinance is not a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as that term is defined by CEQA guidelines (Guidelines) sections 15061(b)(3), and 15378(b)(5). The effect of the proposed amendment will be to maintain the status quo. No new development will result from the proposed action. No impact to the physical environment will result. The City Council also alternatively finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of CEQA as an administrative activity by the City of Hermosa Beach, that will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment, per sections 15061(b)(3), and 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 10. Severability.If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 11. Effective Date. Pursuant to California Government Code section 36937, this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.
SECTION 12. Certification. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Hermosa Beach’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
16.M.b
Packet Pg. 1712 Attachment: Written Comments (6812 : Amend Council Rules) PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2023.
Raymond Jackson
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ ___________________________ Myra Maravilla Patrick Donegan
City Clerk City Attorney
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
16.M.b
Packet Pg. 1713 Attachment: Written Comments (6812 : Amend Council Rules) Ordinance No. 23-XXX
Legislative Digest (for reference only)
“ Chapter 1.06 Custody and Use of the City Seal, Logo, and City “1.06.050 Manufacture and sale of souvenirs and decorative items.
Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a person from manufacturing or selling nondocumentary objects, such as souvenirs or decorative items, bearing the city logo or city insignia as part of the design; provided, that such person undertakes such activity pursuant to agreement with the city, approved by the city council, containing such requirements and limitations as the city council shall deem appropriate to assure that such use of the city logo is in good taste and in the best interests of the city of Hermosa Beach.
“1.06.060 Use of city seal, logo, or insignia for political campaign prohibited.
No person or campaign committee shall use the city seal,logo, insignia, or its design or any design so closely resembling the same as to be apt to deceive or be reasonably mistaken for in any way the city seal or logo, for purposes of supporting or opposing the nomination or election of any person to any city or other public office, or for purposes of supporting or opposing any ballot measure, nor include such city seal or logo on any writing distributed for purposes of influencing the action of the electorate, or any part thereof, in any election. This section shall not be applicable to writings issued by the city of Hermosa Beach or the city council as a whole pursuant to law. “1.06.070 Custodian of city seal,logo and insignia
The city clerk of the city of Hermosa Beach shall be the official custodian of the City seal,logo, and other City insignia .
“1.06.080 Penalty.”
Any person or persons violating the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to punishment in accordance with Chapter 1.04.
Each and every day during any portion of which the provisions of this chapter are violated shall constitute a separate offense and may be punished accordingly.
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
16.M.b
Packet Pg. 1714 Attachment: Written Comments (6812 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 3:48 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-M, 12/17/24 Council meeting
EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete and Honorable Concilmembers,
I support the changes proposed in this item with the exception of section 1.1.3.
Five minutes seems like way too much time for a Councilmember to state their reasons for opposing an item. Presumably that Councilmember has expressed skepticism during discussion of the agenda item in question and her/his views are already apparent. So a minute should be sufficient for simple statement of opposition:
"My colleagues believe Miller Lite beer tastes great. I disagree, as I feel it's less filling."
In my years on the Council those who objected to a vote were able to succinctly express their dissent. So perhaps the time limit in 1.1.3 should be the same as 1.1.2.2.
Regards,
Ted
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
16.M.b
Packet Pg. 1715 Attachment: Written Comments (6812 : Amend Council Rules) 2 --
Ted Winterer
Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
DRE #02047989
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
16.M.b
Packet Pg. 1716 Attachment: Written Comments (6812 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2024 5:54 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica Forward Support for 16.M and 16.O
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
The Santa Monica Forward Steering Committee has reviewed and supports items 16.M and 16.O.
16.M We applaud the Council for proposing necessary and well-thought out procedural changes that will improve efficiency, transparency, and public participation in conducting the city’s business. We support this rule change as a needed step to bring order to City Hall.
16.O This procedural change will help streamline the process for desperately needed new housing. These projects are already required to be approved under state law, meaning additional unnecessary process only delays the production of new housing and substantially adds to the costs. Santa Monica voters showed their strong support this November for new housing and not for unnecessary process.
Thank you for your consideration of our position.
Sincerely,
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
Item 16-M
December 17, 2024
16.M.b
Packet Pg. 1717 Attachment: Written Comments (6812 : Amend Council Rules) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.N
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Councilmember Zwick and Mayor Negrete that the City Attorney and City Manager prepare the City of Santa Monica for the Presidential Transition
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Preparing for the Incoming Presidential Administration 16 item Final B. Resolution 11028 (CCS)
C. Written Comments
16.N
Packet Pg. 1718
16 ITEM
Request of Councilmember Torosis, Councilmember Zwick, and Councilmember Negrete that the City Attorney and City Manager prepare the City of Santa Monica for the Presidential Transition
The City of Santa Monica remains committed to protecting and uplifting all residents, guided by values of equity, inclusion, and justice. In light of the upcoming 2025 presidential transition, potential shifts in federal policy may create challenges for the community, particularly for those most vulnerable to systemic inequities. During times of uncertainty, local governments play a critical role as stewards of democracy, human rights, and opportunity for all.
This commitment is grounded in the Council-adopted five strategic priorities, emphasizing justice and equity as the Council continues to govern with courage, compassion and innovation. Policies and practices must prioritize the needs and voices of those historically excluded from power and resources. Through the empowerment of city staff, engagement with community groups, and the cultivation of meaningful community partnerships, Santa Monica seeks to remain a leader in progress, innovation, and inclusion and ensure we guard against any negative impacts on our residents and stakeholders.
This motion affirms the City’s resolve to act boldly in the face of adversity, ensuring that all residents, regardless of background or circumstance, are able to live with dignity, thrive in the community, and trust in their local government to safeguard their rights and aspirations.
We therefore move that the Council:
1) Reaffirm the City’s commitment to its core values of diversity, equity, and inclusivity by reasserting Santa Monica’s longstanding policies, including the 2017 Resolution (attached), of not enforcing federal immigration laws, not sharing information with federal immigration authorities absent a judicial warrant, and designating City facilities, such as libraries, schools, parks, beaches, bus stops, and community centers as safe spaces that the City will not permit to be used to assist or facilitate federal immigration enforcement. 2) Direct the City Attorney and City Manager to, within 90 days, take the following actions and return to Council with a comprehensive report on progress:
a. Regulatory Review: Conduct a review of local laws, policies, and regulations to identify any changes needed to strengthen protections for vulnerable community members, including considering an emergency declaration if warranted.
b. Evaluate Financial Impacts: Assess the potential funding and operational impacts of any reductions in federal or state funding tied to immigration16.N.a Packet Pg. 1719 Attachment: Preparing for the Incoming Presidential Administration 16 item Final (6816 : Preparing for Presidential Transition) related policies or actions and develop a contingency plan to address potential gaps.
c. Legislative Advocacy: Monitor and evaluate the potential impacts of proposed federal, state, and regional legislation on Santa Monica residents, particularly those affecting immigrant and vulnerable communities, and seek opportunities to support or oppose such measures through legislative advocacy, including joining or initiating amicus briefs as appropriate. d. Legal Advocacy: Authorize the City Attorney, at the City Attorney's discretion and authority, to join the City of Santa Monica as amicus support (friends of the court) when requested in cases challenging actions from the presidential administration that are inconsistent with the City’s core values or legislative priorities. Additionally, work with the County Office of Immigrant Affairs, Represent LA, Immigrants are LA, and Familias Latinas Unidas (FLU) to partner on funding for legal counsel for immigrants in active removal proceedings. Finally, review the City’s existing laws and evaluate whether new laws need to be passed to ensure that LGBTQIA+ individuals are protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity in all areas, including housing, schools, places of public accommodation, and locally funded programs. These protections should be implemented in the provision of all municipal services. e. Programmatic Support. Direct the City Manager to evaluate and develop, if necessary, new programming and additional services in the case of programs being reduced or eliminated by the new presidential administration. Further, explore the prohibition of any city agency from collecting information about immigration status unless required by court order or state or federal law. f. Community and Staff Reassurance: Partner with local organizations including but not limited to FLU, community leaders, and stakeholders to develop strategies, messaging, and programming reassuring members of the community and City staff who may feel vulnerable due to national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or immigration status. In coordination with FLU, conduct community engagement to review and update the City’s 2017 Resolution with any recommended amendments.
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1720 Attachment: Preparing for the Incoming Presidential Administration 16 item Final (6816 : Preparing for Presidential Transition)
16.N.b
Packet Pg. 1721 Attachment: Resolution 11028 (CCS) (6816 : Preparing for Presidential Transition)
16.N.b
Packet Pg. 1722 Attachment: Resolution 11028 (CCS) (6816 : Preparing for Presidential Transition)
16.N.b
Packet Pg. 1723 Attachment: Resolution 11028 (CCS) (6816 : Preparing for Presidential Transition)
16.N.b
Packet Pg. 1724 Attachment: Resolution 11028 (CCS) (6816 : Preparing for Presidential Transition)
16.N.b
Packet Pg. 1725 Attachment: Resolution 11028 (CCS) (6816 : Preparing for Presidential Transition) 1 David Yakobson
From: William Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 2:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Public Comment 9/17/2024 Item 16.N.
EXTERNAL
Council Meeting 9/17/2024
Public Comment - Item 16.N.
I agree 100% with the goal of this policy but disagree with how you are adopting and implementing it. Providing or assisting with sanctuary for unlawful aliens risks potential repercussions from and litigation with the federal government such as withholding of federal funds and cooperation.
Therefore:
1. You should address this issue involving potential claims against and litigation with the City in Executive Session.
2. The City Manager should immediately verbally instruct all City Departments to notify him when requests for assistance are made, and all responses should be slow walked, not refused, and overseen by the City Manager and/or City Attorney.
3. All records that the federal government may want should be destroyed, sanitized or made less available (eg sent to an offshore attorney), as appropriate.
4. Avoid making a record of the City’s policy not to cooperate. Your goal is to protect residents while minimizing potential costs to the City, not inviting serious problems for the City with the federal government so you can publicly broadcast your good intentions.
/s/ Bill
Item 16-N
December 17, 2024
Item 16-N
December 17, 2024
16.N.c
Packet Pg. 1726 Attachment: Written Comments (6816 : Preparing for Presidential Transition) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.O
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis that, in order to reduce the time and cost associated with developing new housing in the City, the City Council direct the City Manager and City Attorney to return with an ordinance by April 30, 2025 that allows all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located.
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
16.O
Packet Pg. 1727
From: Brian O"Neil
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: David White; PNA
Subject: 12/17/24 City Council Meeting - Item 16.0 - OPPOSE Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 1:37:27 PM
EXTERNAL
December 17, 2024
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Re: 12/17/24 Item 16.O -- Administrative Approval for Development in Non-Residential Zones –OPPOSE
The PNA Board is writing to oppose Item 16.O., which would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located.
PNA Board concurs with all six concerns outlined by FOSP in its 12/17/24 letter to council (see below).
Thank you for your studied consideration of these concerns.
December 17, 2024
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1728 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) Re: 12/17/24 Item 16.O -- Administrative Approval for Development in Non-Residential Zones –OPPOSE
The FOSP Board is writing to oppose Item 16.O., which would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located.
We are very concerned that you would move forward with
this without the following information:
1. No Baseline or Progress Established. You aren’t asking for any data relating to our development activity before instructing staff.
We expect
decisions that impact residents to be based on data.
Prior to any
procedural changes being made, you must request data from staff that includes: number of applications, status of each application, number of units in process by number of bedrooms and income levels, size of units, height of buildings, FAR of buildings, and aggregate progress toward each income-level RHNA target now.
2. No Evidence Process Needs to be Faster, that this Process Slows or Would be Faster With Change. Without the information from #1, you don’t know we are “behind” and need to “speed up.”
Furthermore, you
have presented no information about the difference in timelines of a housing project with and without a public process.
3. No Evidence Process is More Expensive, that the Expense is Preventing Housing, or the that Cost Savings for a Project Resulting from the Change. Again, without the information from #1, you don’t know we are “behind” and need to “speed up.”
Furthermore, you have
presented no information about the costs of the process with and without a public process. We have yet to see any full public accounting of a project so that we can see not only what the public process costs, but how that compares to the overall costs and profits of a project. We shouldn’t be asked to forego public engagement for an unknown benefit to developers.
4. No Information About How Many Parcels are Impacted by Size. “All
non-residential zones” is a huge area and includes parcels of many sizes, many with contiguous ownership.The previous change that removed the public for projects under 1 acre was limited in size because otherwise we risk fundamentally altering the character of our Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1729 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) neighborhoods in a complete end-run around the planning process. We need an inventory of all parcels by size, classification, and current use, along with an analysis of what the impact would be of losing each use to residential development.For example, we have no hardware store left in Santa Monica. How many resident-serving non-residential uses would we lose? Furthermore, where is the anlaysis of converting entire swaths of land to dense development? The Santa Monica Airport Business Park is 47 acres and redeveloping it was intended to be the subject of a public area plan. This ordinance does a complete end run around the LUCE and a total disregard of the Sunset Park neighborhood.
5. No Analysis of Impact on State Housing Laws. Given the fluidity of state housing laws, it’s imperative to understand how such an ordinance relates to our compliance with the current housing element and how it impacts our future obligations to build more market rate units. We already saw that council is unwilling to request an amendment to current the staff “error” upzoning Ocean Park Boulevard based on the unsubstantiated claim that it would trigger Builders Remedy. We are very concerned that enacted this ordinance could then never be reversed, lest staff and council claim a reversal would throw us into another Builders Remedy.
6. No Evidence Such an Ordinance Makes Housing More
Affordable.We have said many times before that we do not object to affordable housing, we object to projects that do not comply with local zoning.Here, there are no affordability requirements in this proposal.
We do NOT need more market-rate housing and we cannot continue to approve projects with 10%-15% affordable units, which leaves us unable to meet our affordability targets while overburdening our limited resources with market-rate units. Trickle down housing does not work.
Furthermore, we are disappointed that council fails to require 30% affordable consistent with Prop A.
As we have shown, there are simply too many unknowns, both respect to where we are and what the impacts would be of this ordinance.The new Council’s decision to push this forward in its very first meeting creates the perception that they will be governing based on ideology, rather than data or evidence, for the purposes of increasing market rate housing density, regardless of its impact on existing neighborhoods and residents.
No ordinance should be ordered, and no ordinance can be taken seriously, without first requesting all of the information above from staff.
Then, ONLY IF a need can be demonstrated for expanding the existing Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1730 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) streamlining provisions, it still should be limited as follows:
·Acreage should be capped (as it was by the previous Council) ; ·Parcels should expressly exclude (1) the Airport, and (2) the Santa Monica Business Park on Ocean Park Blvd., in addition to the Bergamot Area Plan;
·Streamlining should ONLY be provided to those projects that conform to existing zoning, without any state bonuses; and ·Streamlining should only be allowed for projects that achieve 30% affordable AND are consistent with local zoning WITHOUT state bonuses.
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1731 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) From: nancy hall
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 16 - December 17, 2024 - Oppose
Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 1:23:31 PM
EXTERNAL
December 17, 2024
Re : Agenda item 16 - oppose
Dear City Council,
As a concerned neighbor, I urge you to oppose Agenda item 16, which, if passed, will suspend public review, and relegate the process of development to administrative decree.
Many years were devoted to crafting a master plan and vision for our city, only to be ignored, in favor of some supreme government power.
Please do your duty as an elected official, and do not deny the public participation in shaping the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Nancy Hall
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1732 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1733 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) 1 David Yakobson
From: Bruce Leddy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 11:59 AM
To: Clerk Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall
Cc: David White
Subject: ITEM 16.O - Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
December 17, 2024
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council Members
From: The Board of NOMA (North of Montana Association)
Re: Item 16.O - OPPOSE
The NOMA Board opposes Item 16.O which would allow housing projects proposed in nonresidential zones to be streamlined through Administrative Approval. While we recognize the need for more affordable housing in Santa Monica, such an ordinance would do nothing to increase affordability while giving the greenlight to developers to circumvent local control and public input.
The state has mandated that we create nearly 70% of our RHNA number units as "affordable" but we are falling woefully short of that requirement. Therefore, any ordinance written to streamline the development process must include an affordability component or we will continue our current path of significantly over-building market rate, and drastically under-building affordable units. Such a path will put us in direct conflict with the state mandates and may jeopardize our approved Housing Element and Pro-housing designation.
We urge you to reject 16.O until it includes language that requires a minimum of 30% affordable units in order for a development project to qualify for Administrative Approval consideration.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Bruce Leddy
Chair, NOMA
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1734 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) 1 David Yakobson
From: John Lin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 11:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16.O More housing!
EXTERNAL
I love living and working in Santa Monica! Thank you for making it easier for the community to grow so we can share this great city with more neighbors!
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1735 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) 2 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 11:46 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE City Council Agenda Item 16.O, December 17, 2024
EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Northeast Neighbors
Re: Opposition to Agenda Item 16.O, December 17, 2024: Administrative Approval for Development in Non-Residential Zones
The Board of Northeast Neighbors joins with the leaders of other neighborhood associations to Oppose Item 16.O., which would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located.
No ordinance should be ordered by the Council until a data-driven need can be demonstrated to expand the existing streamlining provisions. Unless and until such analysis has been done, the current limits should stand:
Acreage continue to be capped
Parcels should expressly exclude (1) the Airport, and (2) the Santa Monica Business Park on Ocean Park Blvd., in addition to the Bergamot Area Plan Streamlining should ONLY be provided to those projects that conform to existing zoning, without any State bonuses
Streamlining should only be allowed for projects that achieve 30% affordable as required by Proposition A and are consistent with local zoning irrespective of State bonuses.
The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1736 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) 3 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 11:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I strongly support 16O
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I strongly support item 16O.
The current process wastes time and resources both for the city and the applicant.
It is also misleading, as it leads the less informed public to believe that they have the power to influence the outcome of these projects when the law actually prevents that.
Our city staff is already stretched very thin and this is only making their job harder, while only generating frustrations on all fronts.
Thank you for this item, and I hope you all support it.
Caro Vilain, 90404
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1737 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) 4 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:43 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; David Martin
Subject: 12/17/2024 City Council Meeting - Item 16.0 - Administrative Approval for Development in Non-Residential Zones - OPPOSED by Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board of Directors
EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board of Directors opposes Item 16.O., which would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located.
We are very concerned that you would move forward with this without the following information:
1. No Baseline or Progress Established. You aren’t asking for any data relating to our development activity before instructing staff. We expect decisions that impact residents to be based on data. Prior to any procedural changes being made, you must request data from staff that includes: number of applications, status of each application, number of units in process by number of bedrooms and income levels, size of units, height of buildings, FAR of buildings, and aggregate progress toward each income-level RHNA target.
2. No Evidence that Process Needs to be Faster or that this Process Slows or Would be Faster with Proposed Change. Without the information from #1, you don’t know if we are “behind” and need to “speed up.” Furthermore, you have presented no information about the difference in timelines of a housing project with and without a public process.
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1738 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) 5 3. No Evidence Process is More Expensive, that the Expense is Preventing Housing, or the Cost Savings for a Project Resulting with Proposed Change. Again, without the information from #1, you don’t know if we are “behind” and need to “speed up.” Furthermore, you have presented no information about the costs of the process with and without a public process. We have yet to see any full public accounting of a project so that we can see not only what the public process costs, but how that compares to the overall costs and profits of a project. We shouldn’t be asked to forego public engagement for an unknown benefit to developers.
4. No Information About How Many Parcels are Impacted by Size. “All nonresidential zones” is a huge area and includes parcels of many sizes, many with contiguous ownership. The previous change that removed the public for projects under one acre was limited in size because otherwise we risk fundamentally altering the character of our neighborhoods in a complete end-run around the planning process. We need an inventory of all parcels by size, classification, and current use, along with an analysis of what the impact would be of losing each use to residential development. For example, we have no hardware store left in Santa Monica. How many resident-serving non-residential uses would we lose? Furthermore, where is the analysis of converting entire swaths of land to dense development? The Santa Monica Airport Business Park is 47 acres and redeveloping it was intended to be the subject of a public area plan. This ordinance does a complete end run around the LUCE and a total disregard of the Wilmont neighborhood.
5. No Analysis of Impact on State Housing Laws. Given the fluidity of state housing laws, it’s imperative to understand how such an ordinance relates to our compliance with the current housing element and how it impacts our future obligations to build more market rate units. We already saw that council is unwilling to request an amendment to correct the staff “error” upzoning Ocean Park Boulevard based on the unsubstantiated claim that it would trigger Builders Remedy. We are very concerned that if enacted this ordinance could then never be reversed, lest staff and council claim a reversal would throw us into another Builders Remedy.
6. No Evidence Such an Ordinance Makes Housing More Affordable. We have said many times before that we do not object to affordable housing, we object to projects that do not comply with local zoning. Here, there are no affordability requirements in this proposal. We do NOT need more market-rate housing and we cannot continue to approve projects with 10%-15% affordable units, which leaves us unable to meet our affordability targets while overburdening our limited resources with market-rate units. Trickle down housing does not work. Furthermore, we are disappointed that council fails to require 30% affordable consistent with Prop A.
As we have shown, there are simply too many unknowns, both with respect to where we are and what the impacts would be of this ordinance. The new Council’s decision to push this forward in its very first meeting creates the perception that they will be governing Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1739 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) 6 based on ideology, rather than data or evidence, for the purposes of increasing market rate housing density, regardless of its impact on existing neighborhoods and residents and the overall city’s budget. Housing is a revenue loser for the city; we need capital improvements to provide revenue to the city for all the proposed housing. As well, giving city land to SM College and SMMUSD, who pay no property taxes, we lose the ability for these lands to provide revenue for a densifying city with only housing.
No ordinance should be ordered, and no ordinance can be taken seriously, without first requesting all of the information above from staff. Then, ONLY IF a need can be demonstrated for expanding the existing streamlining provisions, it still should be limited as follows:
· Acreage should be capped (as it was by the previous Council) ; · Parcels should expressly exclude (1) the Airport, and (2) the Santa Monica Business Park on Ocean Park Blvd., in addition to the Bergamot Area Plan; · Streamlining should ONLY be provided to those projects that conform to existing zoning, without any state bonuses; and
· Streamlining should only be allowed for projects that achieve 30% affordable as required by Proposition A AND are consistent with local zoning WITHOUT state bonuses.
Respectfully,
Wilmont Board of Directors
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1740 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) 7 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: support 16O
EXTERNAL
Thank you for placing this item on the agenda.
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1741 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: City Council 12/17/24 agenda item 16.0 -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
December 16, 2024, 2024
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
Re: 12/17/24 Item 16.O -- Administrative Approval for Development in Non-Residential Zones – OPPOSE
The FOSP Board is writing to oppose Item 16.O, which would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located.
We are very concerned that you would move forward with this without the following information:
1. No Baseline or Progress Established. You aren’t asking for any data relating to our development activity before instructing staff. We expect decisions that impact residents to be based on data. Prior to any procedural changes being made, you must request data from staff that includes: number of applications, status of each application, number of units in process by number of bedrooms and income levels, size of units, height of buildings, FAR of buildings, and aggregate progress toward each income-level RHNA target now.
2. No Evidence Process Needs to be Faster, that this Process Slows or Would be Faster With Change. Without the information from #1, you don’t know we are “behind” and need to “speed up.” Furthermore, you have presented no information about the difference in timelines of a housing project with and without a public process.
3. No Evidence Process is More Expensive, that the Expense is Preventing Housing, or the that Cost Savings for a Project Resulting from the Change. Again, without the information from #1, you don’t know we are “behind” and need to “speed up.” Furthermore, you have presented no information about the costs of the process with and without a public process. We have yet to see any full public accounting of a project so that we can see not only what the public process costs, but how that compares to the overall costs and profits of a project. We shouldn’t be asked to forego public engagement for an unknown benefit to developers.
4. No Information About How Many Parcels are Impacted by Size. “All non-residential zones” is a huge area and includes parcels of many sizes, many with contiguous ownership. The previous change that removed the public for projects under 1 acre was limited in size because otherwise we risk fundamentally altering the character of our neighborhoods in a complete end-run around the planning process. We need an inventory of all Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1742 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) 2 parcels by size, classification, and current use, along with an analysis of what the impact would be of losing each use to residential development. For example, we have no hardware store left in Santa Monica. How many resident-serving non-residential uses would we lose? Furthermore, where is the anlaysis of converting entire swaths of land to dense development? The Santa Monica Airport Business Park is 47 acres and redeveloping it was intended to be the subject of a public area plan. This ordinance does a complete end run around the LUCE and a total disregard of the Sunset Park neighborhood.
5. No Analysis of Impact on State Housing Laws. Given the fluidity of state housing laws, it’s imperative to understand how such an ordinance relates to our compliance with the current housing element and how it impacts our future obligations to build more market rate units. We already saw that council is unwilling to request an amendment to current the staff “error” upzoning Ocean Park Boulevard based on the unsubstantiated claim that it would trigger Builders Remedy. We are very concerned that enacted this ordinance could then never be reversed, lest staff and council claim a reversal would throw us into another Builders Remedy.
6. No Evidence Such an Ordinance Makes Housing More Affordable. We have said many times before that we do not object to affordable housing, we object to projects that do not comply with local zoning. Here, there are no affordability requirements in this proposal. We do NOT need more market-rate housing and we cannot continue to approve projects with 10%-15% affordable units, which leaves us unable to meet our affordability targets while overburdening our limited resources with market-rate units. Trickle down housing does not work.
Furthermore, we are disappointed that council fails to require 30% affordable consistent with Prop A.
As we have shown, there are simply too many unknowns, both respect to where we are and what the impacts would be of this ordinance. The new Council’s decision to push this forward in its very first meeting creates the perception that they will be governing based on ideology, rather than data or evidence, for the purposes of increasing market rate housing density, regardless of its impact on existing neighborhoods and residents.
No ordinance should be ordered, and no ordinance can be taken seriously, without first requesting all of the information above from staff. Then, ONLY IF a need can be demonstrated for expanding the existing streamlining provisions, it still should be limited as follows:
· Acreage should be capped (as it was by the previous Council) ; · Parcels should expressly exclude (1) the Airport, and (2) the Santa Monica Business Park on Ocean Park Blvd., in addition to the Bergamot Area Plan; · Streamlining should ONLY be provided to those projects that conform to existing zoning, without any state bonuses; and
· Streamlining should only be allowed for projects that achieve 30% affordable AND are consistent with local zoning WITHOUT state bonuses.
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1743 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing) 1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2024 5:54 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica Forward Support for 16.M and 16.O
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
The Santa Monica Forward Steering Committee has reviewed and supports items 16.M and 16.O.
16.M We applaud the Council for proposing necessary and well-thought out procedural changes that will improve efficiency, transparency, and public participation in conducting the city’s business. We support this rule change as a needed step to bring order to City Hall.
16.O This procedural change will help streamline the process for desperately needed new housing. These projects are already required to be approved under state law, meaning additional unnecessary process only delays the production of new housing and substantially adds to the costs. Santa Monica voters showed their strong support this November for new housing and not for unnecessary process.
Thank you for your consideration of our position.
Sincerely,
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
Item 16-O
December 17, 2024
16.O.a
Packet Pg. 1744 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6821 : Development of New Housing)