City Council - Regular Meeting

Hi every Oh hello. It is uh 5:32. We're going to go ahead and start the meeting. Uh thank you for attending the Tuesday, January 13th meeting of the Santa Monica City Council. Uh if members of the audience could turn off their phones or turn them to vibrate so as not to disrupt the meeting, that would be appreciated. Um, council member uh, okay, Snell, will you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Thank you. Everybody, please stand.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Great. Um, could we now get a uh roll call? Oh, my apologies. Uh, council member Hall, will you do the land acknowledgement? The city of Santa Monica is located on the land of the Tovangar. With great respect, the city acknowledges the Gabrieleno Tongva as the first people of this ancestral and unseated territory of Kurovanga, a village that we now know as Santa Monica. We honor their elders, past and present, and the Gabrieleno descendants who are part of the Gabrieleno Tongva tribes. We recognize that these peoples are still here and that as settlers in Kuam or guests, we recognize our responsibility and obligation to care for their land in partnership with them. The city of Santa Monica commits to work in partnership with the Gabrieleno Tongva people to uplift their voices and visibility on their ancestral land.

Great. Thank you so much. Um, just for the record, one council member is attending remotely tonight, so all uh votes will be done by roll call. And if the clerk could please uh start that. Council member Negrete is currently absent. Council member Hall present. Council member Raskin here. Council member Snow here. Council member Zernit Skaya here. Mayor Prom Zwick is currently absent. And Mayor Terosas present. We have a quorum.

Great. Um, and uh before we start with general public input uh and comment on special agenda items, uh I'm wondering if we could do some agenda management and hear a motion to hear 11 A and 11B then 7A after the consent calendar uh and 11 C before 10A. And I don't know um city manager Chi if you wanted to just explain how that will will work. Certainly um given that we have a number of items toward the end of the agenda related to the uh housing production related consideration matters um and they are grouped together um and given the extensive um close session agenda that we have. We thought it'd be appropriate to do the um initial boards and commissions review study session before we go to close session so um folks can participate in that conversation. In addition, the refunding of our existing tax allocation bonds, that item um if it's moved up prior to close session also provides folks an opportunity to engage. Then at the end of our meeting after we come back from close session, all of the corresponding um housing production related items that we'll be considering tonight will be grouped together. Seemed like there was a logic in doing that. We're suggesting the council maybe coordinate um the agenda in that manner. The mayor and I also spoke. This also helps council member Negrete um participate later in the evening.

I'll make that motion. Second. Mayor, sorry. Did you also want to um move up the mayor's highlight? Yes. I was also going to ask if we could additionally move uh the mayor's announcement which is are going to be a couple of commendations and we have folks here uh after general public input. Sure. I'll make that motion. Second. Okay. Um, made by Snell, second by Hall, council [clears throat] member Zernitkaya. Yes. Council member Snell. Yes. Mayor Promig is still absent. Mayor, um, Council Member Ain, [laughter] yes. Um, Council Member Hall, yes. Um, council member Negrete is still absent. And Mayor Terrosus,

yes. Okay, motion passes. And um our next item is um item one, general public input and comment on uh special agenda items. Um and currently we are at 37 speakers for 1A. Great. Um so everyone will have one minute. Uh and then before uh we start I before we start

before we start I just uh first of all you'll have two warnings and then you'll be kicked out if you disrupt the meeting. Uh before we begin tonight's agenda, I just wanted to make a couple of announcements because I know that we've received uh a lot of communication from members of the public and just in an effort to provide some additional clarity and information, I wanted to address an issue that has generated significant public interest and a large volume of correspondence to the city council. During the past few days, we've received thousands of emails related to the revotes we are planning to consider this evening related to prior housing production related items. Along these line along those lines, we've read in those emails that the council should consider I'm sorry. We've read in those emails that the council should consider not exceeding state law on SB123. And finally, the emails have asked that the city reassess a development disposition agreement approved in December of 2024 involving Hollywood Community Housing. I want to start by emphasizing this. The city council takes its responsibility for good governance, ethical decision-making, and public trust very seriously. When the city received formal guidance from the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding Mayor Promzwick's future participation in housing production related matters, this city council directed staff immediately to work to identify a clear, lawful, and transparent process for responding to that guidance. I'd note that the FPPC's advice was perspective and did not conclude that prior council actions were invalid. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, staff conducted a comprehensive review of housing related council actions during the relevant time period and identified a defined set of items that could potentially fall within the scope of the guidance and that was led by our city attorney. Those items are before us tonight for reconsideration and revote and we are taking into account the feedback that we've received from all of you. I also want to be clear, the action the council is taking this evening reflects a deliberate effort to protect the integrity of the city's decision-making

process, remove procedural uncertainty, and ensure that council actions are legally sound and beyond dispute. It is also important to say that the revotes before us tonight represent the full set of items identified through this review by the city attorney. At the same time, if new information were to emerge in the future that raised additional legal or ethical considerations, the city would evaluate those issues consistent with the applicable law and established procedures. Our commitment is to do this work carefully, transparently, and in good faith. With respect to the de development disposition agreement involving Hollywood Community Housing, I want to clarify that this matter is not on tonight's agenda and is not before the council for action this evening. That said, the city is aware of the concerns that have been raised. Staff and the city attorney's office are actively assessing those issues and the council will be briefed as appropriate through the proper channels. We understand that these issues matter deeply to many in our community. While some people may disagree with certain policy outcomes, I want to I want the public to know that this council is committed to following the law, maintaining public trust, and doing the right thing even when that work is complex and difficult. Uh and I don't know if our city attorney or city manager wanted to add anything. Okay. No.

Okay. And we will go into further detail when the appropriate uh actions come forward. I know we received emails on a number of different items on today's agenda. So that was just a global statement. I also just personally want to acknowledge that I've received as many of you have thousands of emails. I am trying to respond to all of them. Uh we we absolutely want transparency and we absolutely are trying to provide that information here tonight. um committed to sitting down and talking with anyone. I know that these issues are uh anxiety, you know, provoking. I I live in an R1 neighborhood. I understand that people are uh very very um animated on this issue and so we're here to hear all of you uh and try to try to do the right thing here for the community. So, we are following every single uh legal advice given to us at this point um and trying to do everything um proactively, transparently, and above board. Uh, and with that being said, I we will go ahead and start the public comment. Uh, and I will call out the first few names. Please line up and we're going to try to get through this as quickly as possible because I know that there are many people here who want to comment on this and other items as well. Dayquin, Ishmael, Jerry Rubin, Alan Mott, and Gonzalo M, please come forward [clears throat]

and um mayor to confirm everyone has one minute. Yes, everyone has one minute. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Dcoin and I worked at Rusty's. Last January, Rusty's closed suddenly, leaving many of us without jobs we held for years. For many of us, that feel like the doors quietly closed on people who helped make this beer feel like home to so many. We went through last Christmas without knowing what might happen to our jobs. We lost our jobs for no fault of our own. Um, when you're eating at Big Deans, you're being served by Rusty's workers. When you're eating at ZGuardian on Pico Boulevard, you're being served by Rusty's workers. Every day, Rusty's workers serve the Santa Monica community. My co-workers and I are professionals. We can do the job and we can do the job well. So, please pass a strong worker retention law so I can have the chance to go back to work. Thank you.

We do happy hands. We You're happy to stand. You're happy to have a sign. You're happy to have happy hands, but no clapping. Thank you.

Thank you very very much. Jerry Rubin, member of the urban forest task force, but just speaking for myself, Madame Mayor, Mr. Mayor Prom, honorable city council members, city staff, city attorney, police department, fellow Santa Monas, I wish every single one of you the very best happy, healthy new year for you and yours. There's no reason why it shouldn't be. We could all work together and have win-win solutions. I want to say uh seems like it's moving along to get some food vending machines here. I hope it happens. It'll be really good. Keep our blood sugar there. And they're all invited to the urban forest task force meeting tomorrow in the main library multi-purpose room. The first meeting of the new year at 6 pm. Thank you all very much.

Tremendous new year. Thank you.

Hi there. Good evening everybody. Um my name is Ishmael and I was one of the many workers at Rusty's. Um, we helped make the pier a warm and welcoming place for locals and visitors alike. Yet, right now, there is no guarantee that we will be able to return to the jobs that many of us held for years. The Rusty's wasn't just a job for us. It was a second home and a community we poured ourselves into. [snorts] This job meant so much to me and my co-workers. Not only was it the way we made our livingings, it was a community, a family. At Rusty's, I had the pleasure of working some of the hardest working people I've had the pleasure of knowing. People who um poured themselves into making sure that this pier and this city were the welcoming and unique places that they were. Um doing so, we came from all over to be part of this, contributing to this community despite the fact that many of us were not even able to afford to live in this city. We came from all Thank you. Um, we have Alan M Gonzalo M and then I'm going to call up a few more names. Uh, Miguel B, Ela Goldener, Andrew Hoyer.

Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Gonzalo. I sympathize with the former workers at Rusty's because I have also lost my job through no fault of my own. The immediate effect it had on me financially and emotionally [snorts] were immediate as one missing check could mean losing my home and all of my basic needs. I want no one to feel the dark empty space I felt at that time. Please pass the workers retentions policy. Thank you so much. Alan Mont. Mayor and council members, my family has lived, worked, and owned property in this city for over 50 years. In all that time, there has never been a greater gap between the conduct of our government and the aspirations of our residents. Instead of working with us, the council appears focused on consolidating political power and advancing an agenda that serves itself rather than the community. We want representatives who will listen to our needs. That does not mean the residents are always right, but we deserve to be heard and taken seriously. This is our city and it feels like it is being recklessly dismantled. We use used to be strong and progressive, but you seem to have forgotten the real source of our strength, our people. I'm asking you to stop this outofc control building, take a breath, and listen to the people you were elected to represent.

Thank you, Miguel B. And then Elaine Golden Giler, Andrew Hoyer, Eli Kones. Hello, my name is Miguel. Uh, I'm a long time a lifetime California resident and I've visited Santa Monica many times. Uh, in that time, it's unacceptable that Rusty's workers have waited a year and over the holidays to know what's happening with their jobs. [clears throat]

A lease on public land was moved forward with no notice on the website. No chance for input from the workers or the community and without a right of return policy for the workers who served the community for years when the community pointed out this error. The peer commission held another meeting but still provided no guarantee of protections to workers. The workers make the city of Santa Monica. the workers make the peer and please pass a worker retention policy that would ensure laid-off workers are offered the first chance to return to their jobs once they are held. The resties workers have waited long enough and deserve to be returned home. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Goldener. Dear Smur 6 council members, I just want you to know we don't care if you're gay or straight. And we don't care if you're black or white. All we care about, and we could care less about anything else, we don't care if you're buy or sell. We only want you to care more about residents than you do about developers. Thank you,

Andrew Hoyer. Uh, good evening. My name is Andrew Hoyer. I'm the president of Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors. Nowadays, Freemasons are known for promoting brotherhood, charity, and personal betterment. However, early Masons were as racist as most other institutions of their time. When they finally did accept black members into their group, they still would not allow them into their lodges. The first black Masons in Santa Monica built the Crescent Bay Lodge on Broadway in 1911 with their own funds. As their membership has died off, ownership of the building has become disputed and antagonists are trying to take control of it so it can be torn down and replaced with multi-story housing. Landmarking this building would help preserve it and the neighborhood serving child care business currently thriving in it. The study for landmarking costs five to $6,000. I'm asking that one of you apply some discretionary funds to pay for this. The question is, do you want to preserve black history in Santa Monica or just cave to the housing lobby and pay reparations later? This will be your legacy.

Thank you, Eli. And then we'll call Denise Barton, Alex Gukovski, Jay Johnson, Jakamo Valentini. Good evening. My name is Siglai. I work at Middlear for 37 years. I'm a bartender for banquetss and we cook and we serve the tourists who comes to the peers. And please pass rotation policy that will protect outper workers. Thank you. Thank you. Jeez.

Good evening. Happy new year to our corrupt city council who have shown their personal self-interest and special interests are put before the best interest of the city of Santa Monica as a whole which can also be seen by Mayor Caroline Terres as being sworn in by state assemblyman Rick's ver showing her loyalties lay within higher politicians rather than the residents of Santa Monica. You do remember the saying, "Your actions speak louder than your words." Oh, but I forgot ethics, morals, and values are not in your political handbooks. So, Mayor Teros, are you ready to step down from mayor yet? Or maybe resign from the city council? Have you had enough push back yet? Just wondering. Thank you.

Good evening, Jay Johnson, Uklid, and Wilshire. Perception is reality. We've all heard that. It's very critical these days at Santa Monica to remember perception is reality. I'm here to ask you to restart and revote the Hollywood Community Housing DDA that took place on December 17th of 2024. Three of the six votes on this item on council were compromised. Council member Zwick moved the motion with while secretly emailing the developer. Exarty communications must be disclosed on the record these were not. Mayor Terosa seconded the motion. She works for Supervisor Holly Mitchell whose office HCHC lists as their government partner on their own website. She failed to disclose this relationship. She the same she did the same with the Ocean Avenue project failing the residents of the city time and again. Council member Zernet Sky voted yes after receiving $400 from the people's concern CEO HC.

That is your that sorry that your time is expired. Thank you. Perception is reality. Thank you Mr. Johnson. Um I just if you don't mind um may I make a point of personal privilege? Sure. Go ahead. Um the hearing in question was um not a semi-judicial proceeding. Um and there was no obligation to disclose exarte communications. Is that correct, city attorney? [clears throat] Yes, that's correct. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And city attorney, I would just like to ask I' I've asked you to um inquire as to whether any conflict exists in my day job. Can you just clarify, was there a conflict on that boat? Uh we are uh completing our review of it but to our knowledge we're not there does not appear to be any financial interest related to your job with the county. Thank you. Um Alex Gukovski Jakamo Valentini Claris Senica Andy Moss.

Hi. I'm here to ask you to restart and revote the Hollywood Housing Cartel DDA that took place on December 7th, 2024 item 11A. My name is Elix. I'm the former twice elected chair of the VNC Lupek and I'm here to warn you about the dishonest behavior from the housing cartel and council member Zwick. Zwick served under former CD11 council member Mike Bonan where he was Bonan's communications officer. In this role, he led communications for Bonan's housing platforms, meaning he has a long history with Sarlet Hollywood housing cartel and the controversial Venestelle project. Zwick, Lutz, and Bonan are consistent in their disdain for the stakeholders, bullying, doxing, and harassing community members to advance their personal agendas. Hollywood housing and by extension Zwick are disgraceful players. They exploit the suffering of others for financial gain, profiting off of poverty. Please restart and revote.

Thank you, Jakamo. Uh, my name is Jako Valentini and I'm here ask you about Okay.

I'm here to ask you to restart and revote the Hollywood community housing DDA that took place on [clears throat] December 17th, 2024, agenda item 11A. My name is Jako Valentini and I live near the project. I came to this chamber in June 25th, 2024 to express my concerns. And it turns out that while I was at the microphone, council member Zwick was emailing the developer. He apparently wrote, "30 Mid City neighbors are angrily denouncing the project and possessed with a lot of misinformation." That's what he thought of us while we were speaking. Two months later he privately asked Sarah lets which proposal HCHC preferred. she told him. So none of this at the time was has been disclosed was disclosed and I feel how can we trust our voices that were that our voice

thank you Clara Senica Andy Moss Luis Wanab

I'm here to ask you to restart and revote the Hollywood community housing DDA that took place on December 174 agenda to item 11A. My name is Clara and I live on Uklid. I went to the community meetings. I tried to participate in good faith. What I found was that my voice and the voices of my neighbors were drowned out. We were overrun by professional housing advocates who don't live here. Super PACF funded activists and organizations that enlist speakers to give public comments for developer projects. While we were speaking, council member was calling us misinformed to the developer. How is that community engagement fair? I believe this has to change. We need a new outreach process. This is a 99-year commitment of our public land given away for $1. Plus, $13.5 million of our public funds are being spent on this when our city is going bankrupt. Actual neighbors deserve an untainted process. Please include this in your

Thank you.

Thank you, Andy Moss. Good evening. My name is Andy Moss and I'm a member of Clue Clergy and Lady United for Economic Justice. I'm here today in support of the workers at Rusty's in support of a strong retention law for them and for other workers at the pier. As a member of Clue, I see the need for such a law in the most basic sense. People aren't commodities. They're not disposable. Someone who gives years of good service to a business, particularly a business like a restaurant on our pier, has given to hundreds, perhaps thousands of visitors, has served our community in incalculable ways. A council that values community values the working people who contribute so much to it. A vote for retention lifts up our best selves, affirming the dignity and value of every working person in our city. Thank you.

Thank you, Lewis. Um, mayor. Yeah, I'm sorry. There is um a minor who signed up uh who I just recognized and we should have heard this person first. Archie Windsor. Great. Let's um while that person's coming up, we'll have Lewis uh speak and then we'll recognize the minor. [snorts]

Uh good evening. Uh my name is Lewis Watinab and my family has uh been associated with Santa Monic for about a hundred years and uh my uh my uncle Kay retired as the city treasurer. Um so um you know u the pier is a is a landmark. It's a symbol. Uh I I I've I've certainly enjoyed uh many a time at the pier and um and what really makes it uh such a great thing is people uh people come, families and uh we have uh uh [snorts] workers who who really help to give that welcome uh feeling for people. And so I think it's really important that we have a strong right to retention law uh to help uh the workers so that we have happy workers, happy community. So thank you very much.

Thank you. And did we say it was Archie Windsor? Okay. Thank you.

Good evening, council. My name is Archie Windsor. I'm currently 17, a senior at Santa Monica High School. Um, I'm here to urge you to resend the upzoning of 264430th Street, which was approved through votes made by council members Wick despite his conflict of interest. Um, I've lived in Santa Monica my whole life. I want to stay here my whole life. But if the council um continues down this sort of path, I find that very difficult for me and um many other young people. So, thank you.

Thank you. We'll go back now to the order. Mike Feinstein, uh, Reverend Jim Khan, Ashley Ols, sorry, Ashley Olsen. I'm just going to call up a few names so you can get ready. Mike Feinstein, Jim Khan, Ashley Olsson, Harvey Eder, and Stephanie. Mike. Hi everyone. Um, I'm here to talk about our great park and a little bit of irony. As you all know, that there's a ballot measure that's probably going to be filed in the next few days that would allow a lot of development on the area that a lot of us think is just going to be a park when we get the airport back. And the irony that I see is that this is land that's worth billions and billions of dollars and the ballot measure would essentially restrict a large portion of it use for just a few people compared to the millions over time that would be if it's all a park. And the irony is that the folks are calling it a commons when we're taking public land worth billions and dedicating it to a small number of people. And I think you can make your argument to say it's a better use to do that. But don't call it a commons and don't say you can have a great park and that development when we all know what we mean by a great park and that's enough land to meet all of our open space needs there. Don't appropriate terms. Thank you.

Thanks. Um, madame city clerk, did you are you still in the queue? Um, and I am no longer in the queue. Okay. Sorry. Uh, Reverend Khan.

Good evening, council members, mayor. I'm [clears throat] Reverend Jim Khan and I was a member of this council when a major winter storm destroyed most of the original pier. We thought the pier was the heart and soul of the city and we uh knew that we had to rebuild it and we did. But it's not the structure or the buildings or even the activities on the pier that make it a rich experience for visitors from all over the world. It's the workers, the people who work on the rides at the businesses and the restaurants who make the experience a rich one for everyone who visits. And I hope that you will recognize their work and their value. I urge you to adopt a workers's recall and retention ordinance to protect people who have worked here, done a great job, and wish to return to work here. Thank you. Thank you, Ashley Olsson. [snorts]

Yeah, I called Ashley. Ashley Olsen is not coming. We just switched. We're splitting our time. Okay.

Okay. Uh, howdy. Good evening. My name is Harvey Eder. I'm talking for myself, etc. I gave a threepage document to y'all uh members of the council on one page to city manager, one page to uh the city attorney. Okay, this is in reference we're being evict I'm being evicted from Samos show. There's all kinds of stuff going on. There's a federal case has been filed in October besides the state cases, Department of Justice, and there's a federal investigation abuse of homeless money. you're into doing it up to your ears and everything. It's going on now. We're trying to get those folks to help resist and get us a restraining order. This is retaliation because we're trying to speak up for equity. Inequity in the society is tearing it apart. And uh this, you know, we had in our toilet for six months. We're getting evicted and uh and so then we put in a ninepage uh affidavit of etc. And it's it's loss was thrown out. It was not

y Thank you, Mr. Ashley Olsson, Stephanie, Wade, Kelly, and Bowman. [clears throat] And Miss Olsson, your video. Would you like your video?

She's going to play it during her time since we're reduced on a minute. [snorts] [clears throat] Thank you. Good evening. Former Mayor Brock had polo shirts made using the city's official logo at his own expense, but without formal approval. One of the first actions this new council took was to address concerns about ethical government. In response to the misuse, you barred the use of the city seal in political advertising. The stated purpose was to allow you to focus on the city's most pressing issues with the greatest impact. We are about to play a video and my question to you is this. How can you sit on the dis and take no issue with a paid lobbyist using his position as a city council member as a tactic of persuasion before other city councils advocating for building code changes that directly affect public safety and shape some of the most consequential changes to cities? Polo shirts are petty. Building codes impact public safety dramatically impacting our neighborhoods. If ethics matter, they must matter most when the stakes are the highest.

[applause] So give my time to play the video, please.

Director for the housing action coalition. Our membership spans 20 industries including affordable and market rate homebuilders, architects and designers, engineers and attorneys, all devoted to solving our statewide housing crisis. uh singlestair reform uh could be truly transformative for creating more affordable and livable housing in the city of LA if we get the details right and I support the decision to send this back to committee today [clears throat] to get them right. Speaking as a fellow elected for the city of Santa Monica uh who is contemplating a policy that is far less restrictive than the one that is before you today. Uh I ask that you be brave and follow the science and the data on this. For context, Seattle has allowed six-story singlestar buildings without incident since the 70s. Same with New York City. Honolulu legalized it in 2012. In just the past few years, Memphis and Austin have followed suit. Around the world, Germany and Singapore allow single stair buildings as tall as 20 stories. Switzerland and South Korea have no height limit at all. This is a proven, safe, effective way to get better, more affordable apartments that will improve people's lives. Thank you so much.

Okay, excuse me. We will not be uh stock talking out of turn. Uh Wade Kelly, Anne Bowman, Christina Navaro, and Nikki Kolhoff. Hello, my name is Wade Kelly. I'm peaceful peaceful prominade protester. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. The test of our progress is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. Santa Monica, we are failing. We are criminalizing homelessness as our governor did when he asked the Supreme Court, Trump's Supreme Court to help him criminalize homelessness in Grants Pass versus Johnson. The other night in the state of a state, he said the unsheltered homeless population has dropped by 9%. Where's the housing? The arrests have gone up in San Francisco by 500%. in Los Angeles by over 68% this last year. And I can't even get the record of how many homeless people have been arrested in Santa Monica. Thank you, Dan.

You're going to get me this information. I appreciate that. Ann Bowman.

Ann Bowman, former recreation and parks commissioner. Um there's something really rotten in a town where four council members got convinced that it's okay direct to direct completely scraping our civic center with no public process. That's the kind of thing that's happening at the national level where public lands and buildings are up for extraction and privatization where legal precedents long-term planning customary procedures and the public trust are being smashed to smitherreens creating chaos and trauma worldwide. The vote of four of you on October 14th, unfortunately, was of the same flavor. Um, showing complete disregard for long-standing planning and clear community preference with overreach way beyond the scope of the original RFP and giving staff cart blanch to smash whatever. Your vote was, whoopsies, a win for crony capitalism and private interest and a massive loss for public process and good government and the public trust. I am.

Thanks. Um, just city manager, are we still in discussions with RPG Group? Yeah, they couldn't hear you say that. We are. Okay. Thank you. Um, Christina Navaro, Nikki Kolhoff, Jonathan Foster, Mary Stewart. [clears throat]

Uh, good evening, U council members. My name is Christina Navaro and I am resident in Santa Monica and and I am work in Beverly Hilton Hotels and I have workers since 22 years. Our public land should be used to advance to go and city right to return to essential workers to less behind when business change. Uh please pass to the worker retention policies and work to ensure to workers will be enforable to first change return to the job they help please. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nikki Kolhoff, Jonathan Foster, Mary Stewart. For now, I sent in visuals. And while I wait for those to get pulled up, I do have a procedural question first. I'm commenting on an item that is not on the agenda, but it relates to housing production. Has been on the agenda before and continues to be a subject before council because of litigation. If it were on the litig on the agenda, Jesse would be legally obligated to recuse. So my question is, if I'm speaking about it now in general public public comment, can he stay here and listen or does he have to recuse and leave the room?

Public [clears throat] comment is not a question and answer session. It's an opportunity for public comment. I'd hope you'd want to follow the law. So I'm asking the city attorney if he has to stay or not. City attorney, are we taking public comment in a legally uh permissible manner currently? Yes. Thank you. I'm gonna restart. One minute. Yeah, we'll restart your time. My understanding of the law is he has to then be admonished that he may not interact with the speakers on items for which he would have to recuse like smirking, making faces, and communicating about the item. Is the timer running? No, this is not a question and answer session. Would you like me to answer this question?

Go ahead. Okay. So, to clarify, if an item is not on the agenda, there is no requirement to recuse. It is just a It is just public comment. General public comment on items not on the agenda. But he's not entitled to point of privilege or responding or asking follow-up questions. Correct. We're done. Um if you'd like to make a comment, we have one minute. Thank you.

I'm speaking about the reasonzoning of 264430th Street, which enables an 85 foot tall housing project making it housing production. Jesse Zwick made the motion as you can see on the screen and he was employed by HAC at the time with his disqualifying conflict. So the vote is invalid and must be rescended yet it's not on the agenda tonight. This also raises the question about lobbying access versus public access. This zoning change came through a lobbying firm. Next next slide please. Uh asking staff to brainstorm opportunities to address the issue with them. You can see I'm bold. Staff described it as correcting a zoning error instead of a quasi judicial reasonzoning which s circuited the public process. The owner didn't apply make representations under penalty of perjury. Pay the $34,000 fee. Uh next slide, two more slides actually. You can see Carol next one more. Caroline Terosas was involved while the public was told this wasn't moving forward. Deference developers has to stop. Please declare this invalid and agenda.

Okay. Uh, no clapping. Jonathan Foster, Mary Stewart, David Stewart, Terry Davis Bernstein. Woo! Jonathan Foster. Boy, it's burning up there. We need to CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT on fire. You guys are burning. Hi. Hi. So, you got to pay off $220 million and you're doing an entertainment zone selling beer, you jerks. the police presence. There was you moved several hundred,000 to have the police presence on Third Street. Why don't you just do a tax break? Why don't you extend a tax break to everybody on Third Streets trying to sell beer and get rid of the beer? And I see children with their families that don't want to have their children exposed to this beer crap. And then there's somebody over there with a big beer and stuff on Third Street Pro. You people are crazy. And the 501c3. It's crazy to have beer out in public like this at at the city Santa Monica. Change the beer on Third Street. Please

change the street. Thank you, Mary Stewart.

Hello. I'm here to ask you to restart and revote the Hollywood Community Housing DDA from December 17th, 2024. Agenda item 11A. I'll be blunt. What we're seeing tonight is a pattern conflicts of interest exposed backroom deals with developers and a council that seems more interested in protecting each other than serving its residents. To the city attorney and staff, [clears throat] your job is to protect the city and its people, not to provide cover for council members with conflicts of interest. To the council, out of an abundance of caution, have some respect for your oath of office. You should start recusing yourselves because a lot of people are now looking into this and a lot more is going to come out. Do the right thing, please. I beg you. Thanks.

David Stewart, Terry Davis Bernstein, Mindy Shamp.

Hello, my name is David Stewart and I'm here to ask you to reconsider the vote on the Hollywood Community Housing DDA that happened on December agenda item 11A. [snorts] When constituents look at the actions of their elected representatives, the appearance of impropriy and conflict of interests are extremely important matters to decide whether a legislative action is appropriate and in the public interest. Under the Constitution, the monuments clause is a key element in ensuring that public officials work in the interests of the public, not themselves. While this is obviously not a constitutional matter, the concern remains the same. Council member Zwick's conduct was not in the interests of the public but of his own wallet. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Terry Davis Bernstein.

Hi. Um I'm Terry Davis Bernstein, an exemplar of your Yimi movement. Um and I oppose all these Helter skelter two big projects that are pipeline from developer to city staff to city council at every mil meeting. I built a home home on the west side of 29th Street with my ex-husband in 1993 and later bought another house next door which we rented out. He got the big house. I have the rental house in the divorce. Behind us on 28th Street, the properties are zoned R4 [snorts] uh you know two-story apartments and condos literally in my backyard. [snorts] Um they are been good neighbors and on a human scale with the city. So, I'm tired of the pre prejuditial assumptions that are made about me and my neighbors when we when we oppose corporate commercial across from single family homes. [snorts] Now, I'm spending a hunk of money to rent a place because I don't want to evict my tenant who's an 81.

Thank you so much. Um, Mindy Shamp. And then we also have Lyanna Einbinder, Vanessa McCarthy, and John Cyrus Smith. Okay. Hi, good evening. I'm Mindy Shank. I am speaking on uh the upzoning of 2644 30th Street. Um while I appreciate your verbal assurances about conducting yourselves with transparency and honesty, that is not at all the reality on the ground here in Santa Monica. I don't accept these conflicted votes have been given proper review after council members Wick's conflict was exposed. This is a rushed process with little notice to the public. He received flawed legal advice from the city attorney claiming he had no conflict. This is its own problem. I urge you to resend the tainted vote up zoning 2644 30th Street. It's a housing production item due to moving from R1 to neighborhood commercial and it was moved by Zwick which means it's invalid and must be rescended. It should have been on the list for 11C, but it is inexplicably not there. The city attorney needs to declare it invalid and notice when it's coming back. The reason you have received thousands of emails is because the people are awake and they're very mad. Thank you.

Thank you. If we could just keep it to hands, Lyanna.

Good evening. I'm also speaking on the upzoning of 2644 30th Street. Uh my name is Lyanna Einer. I've been a resident and voter in Santa Monica for more than 25 years. I submitted a letter along with my husband and some of my neighbors before this meeting urging you to res resend the upzoning of 2644 30th Street as invalid. Unfortunately, it was not added to tonight's agenda. So, I'm here to ask the same in person. That upzoning was approved through votes made by council member Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest and must be rescended. Thank you. Thank you. Um again, please thank you. I appreciate the hands. Um Vanessa McCarthy, John Cyrus Smith, Dune May, and Sean Delgatoio.

Hello. My name is Vanessa McCarthy. I am also here to urge you to resend the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Council Member Zwick, despite his conflict of interest. I deeply love my community and I am devastated by a future of development that will completely overwhelm it. Thank you very much.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, Mr. Chi. Uh John Cyber Smith. I'm a recreation and parks commissioner. Uh this is probably one of my last uh few months on the commission. And with that in mind, I want to challenge this new city council to really make parks, our parks, a priority in 2026 in two very impactful ways. The airport park expansion muchneeded fields was approved in 2017. You can actually start with that project before the airport closes as a foothold into a great park. Number two, in two weeks you guys are going to be hearing about the Memorial Park expansion plan. It's going to be before you. I highly recommend that you approve the plan. We just figured out a way to to to cut the price of phase one in half. And I urge you to support it. Um it's it's about time we got serious. Parks take too long and are too expensive to build in Santa Monica. And I hope that this council

changes.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Dune May Sha Delgato Narwin Good evening and may God guide us all. I would strongly urge all of you to oppose the um proposed rules that the FCC [snorts] is uh planning to vote on. And the deadline for the uh public comments is just two days from now, the the 15th of January. They're proposing rules that will just completely or almost take away all local authority as to where to place uh cell towers. Now, it is the obligation of a city to promote the health of its residents. And it's bad enough that in 1996 there was a telecom act that uh it was a law that took away the rights of local authorities to um refuse the placement of a cell tower based on any health concerns. And now

thank you. Your time is expired. Thank you. Thank you, Sean. Yeah. Hi, Council. Can you hear me? Mhm.

Okay. Uh, does anybody know what's going on at 911 Montana Avenue? This is the third time I've came here, actually spoke at the planning, housing, whatever. It's all right. So let me just recap the art the article I read from eight years ago called evil and corruption written in the Santa Monica daily press the little excerpt maybe there's bribery profiteering double dealing wife swapping human trafficking gun running drug smuggling quid pros like crazy extortion maybe death threats look the Mills Act the unllicensed workers every the whole thing is a cluster you know But okay. Um, so you guys, uh, again, let's like converge. It's an example of everything wrong in this city. All right. It's a three-headed monster. You got not white collar crime. You got Jew caller.

Yeah, I said it. Sir, yeah. No, excuse me, sir. Your time is expired. Let's keep order in the meeting. Otherwise, we're going to have to clear the chambers. Thank you so much. Um, Narwhene, Sierra, Tracy, Ham, Nico. Was that a late chit from Nico? Looks like Narwhene to Nico are late. And we also have four um callers on the line, right? So, the late ones we have to uh move to to hear, correct? Yes. For one minute. Is is the team okay with I make a motion to move. Okay, great. Um, and sorry, uh, Narwin, go ahead.

Hello. Um, I'm here to ask you to restart and revote the Hollywood Community Housing DDA that took place on December 17, 2024, agenda item 11A. My name is Narwin. I want to talk about Carolyn Teros's conflicts. She works for LA County Supervisor Holly Mitchell as her senior policy adviser. Her salary is in excess of $312,000. She failed to disclose to the public that her boss is the government sponsor of the fa of the Hollywood Community Housing Corporation. She failed to disclose that she's worked with them. If you go to hollywoodousing.org right now, you'll see supervisor Holly Mitchell's office listed as their government partner. On December 17th, 2024, Carolyn seconded the motion to approve HCHC's development agreement. She told Sarah, "I've heard great things about you." She failed to recuse herself. Another betrayal of the residents of the city. The residents deserve one equal treatment. Working class.

Thank you. Uh Sierra Tracy Homniko. Mayor, can we take a quick vote to hear the late speakers? Um I think I heard a motion from Council Member Snow and I think seconded by Rascin. Okay. Um and then uh Council Member Grant is absent. Council member Hall, yes. Council member Rasin, yes. Mayor Promzwick, yes. Council member Snell, yes. Council member Zernit Skayan, yes. And Mayor Troes, yes. Thank you. Great. Thank you for actually making us vote. Appreciate that. Sierra Tracy Hom Niko.

Hi, my name is Sierra. I'm getting over a cold. I'm not sick anymore, but I lost my voice. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm here again because I do not feel safe in my home. I do not feel heard or seen and how my complaint is being handled are not handled by the city attorney's office. I have sent an email requesting a meeting but have received no response. My complaint concerns ongoing and aggressive harassment by my landlord, William Pokey Horn. Santa Monica is known for having some of the strongest tenant protections in the nation. Yet, in my experience, those protections are not being enforced for me. As a resident who loves this city, it is deeply painful to feel that these protections exist on paper, but not in practice when you need it the most. The situation has escalated to the point where the landlord's conduct and his coordination with third parties has caused serious emotional distress for me. I have been subjected to harassment for years, but more recently, I have been told by individuals Thank you. I believe you are in contact with our city team and if anyone here from constituent services needs to come out and talk to you, I think they can. Um Tracy H and Nico,

thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm late because um I had a meeting at work and I'm sorry. Um, okay. So, you have to revote on the 2644 30th project because that was a Zwick motion and he pushed that through. And why? Because by changing that to neighborhood, the building to neighborhood commercial, you've now gotten that parking lot exactly where you want it. You've gotten it attached to neighborhood commercial so that you can upzone the um residential there. and they could probably put in about 30 houses and ADUs on those two lots which will directly impact our street, 29th Street and 30th Street. Um there's no egress looked at. And the other thing I want to say before you cut me off is that all of these items I saw tonight, you put now um SQA um common sense exemption. There's no SQA common sense exemption on all of these. You just don't want to do the work and find out that they're going to hurt our safety that they're going to [snorts]

Thank you. Um again, happy hands. Appreciate you all. Nico is Is there a Nico? Um okay, we'll go to the phones then. Okay. Um and I'll I'll call the first speaker because they'd like to be anonymous. Uh first speaker is April. Is that permissible to have anonymous public comments? Well, I would like the last name to okay to be removed. Um, so, April, um, you have one minute.

Good evening. I'm a native of Los Angeles County and graduate educated professional who turned to Santa Monica 20 years ago. I'm here to call for a resolution to 311 ticket CS0204266 regarding the Bayside Hotel. For months, illegal 2 a.m. deliveries have woken us up every night. management promised to change the schedule but have not. When confronted about violating Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.12, the manager deflected by blaming holdless noise and the final word was to see what the city says, daring you to enforce your codes. I'm here to find out what the city does say and asking for a formal citation and resolution. I'm not asking for a favor, but requiring enforcement of the law for mandated quiet hours. Thank you.

Thank you. Mike Montgomery, I believe, is the next person here.

Um, Mr. Montgomery, um, please go ahead and unmute. Yes.

Yes. Unmuted now. Thank you. Um, so serving as mayor is ceremonial. It comes with a gavvel, not a mandate. The job is to run meetings, not to move major decisions forward while residents are kept in the dark. And that's what's happened here. Uh, a facility for severely mentally ill individuals was set up on Ocean Avenue, uh, with no early notice, no clear explanation, and no real chance for public input. But you knew this, Mayor Terosis. You were in contact with the operators, and none of that was shared until it was a done deal. and having the city attorney clarify that you and council members Wick weren't technically breaking the law doesn't mean you weren't breaking the public trust. People aren't upset because they're confused. They're upset because information was withheld. And if there's no real effort to reduce encampments and open drug use, there will be more fires like yesterday. You need to own this. Mayor

Steven Price. Mr. Price, you can go ahead and unmute. Um, we do have one more speaker. We can go to Esther Chung and then we'll Hello. Yes, Mr. Price.

Yeah, thank you. Man, there's like 75 messages just to get through. Listen, when people say public spaces are being shared, that is not reality. What we are actually see are tents set up in parks, people sleeping on cardboard along sidewalks, and openly using drugs. These so-called shared areas are taken over. And yesterday, the danger became impossible to ignore. Fires broke out in the city. One of them was in Palisades Park. I saw it myself while I was walking with my kids. And let me tell you what, that walk was over instantly. And these fires did not just happen. They are the foreseeable result of allowing unhoused individuals with severe mental illness and active drug use to live unsupervised in public spaces. And that brings me to you, Carolyn Terosis. You knew about the Ocean Avenue facilities. She knew what was being planned and she knew the risks, but the public was not alerted. This matters even more because Mayor Terrosus is also a county employee as many people here have stated tonight.

That was one minute. Okay. Esther Chung.

Esther, please press star six to unmute yourself.

[clears throat]

Um, Miss Miss Chung or um, can you hear us and unmute yourself? You have one minute.

Hello. Yes, we can hear you. Hello. Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes, you have one minute. Yes, I Yes. I'm here to ask the council to restart and revote the Hollywood community housing DDA from December 17th, agenda item 11A. I live within 600 ft of this project. I attended the meeting, spoke at the con city council hearing and submitted a written letter explaining my opposition. Yet, my voice and the voices of many neighbors did not matter. I later learned about what happened between council member and uh the uh privately emailing the developer and dismissing community members as being uh misinformed. Um and the emails between Mr. Dwig and Missa led showed that this decision was driven by power and money not by community input. Repeated concerns especially about parking lot uh parking situation on UCLA Street and 14th Street were never meaningfully addressed. Now that we know that three of the six yes voted involved conflicts of interest, I respect respectfully ask the city attorney to advise that this item be voted and brought back to a fair revote.

That was one minute.

Great. Thank you. So that concludes general public comment um on uh general public comment and special agenda items. just due to agenda management, I'm going to go ahead uh with our proclamations for this evening. And so I don't know if our our folks are still here with us, but uh this month is human trafficking prevention month. Uh and we have folks from the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. Uh I don't know if they're here, if they could potentially come forward. Okay, great. Uh and uh we do we have folks from the uh Suna Jane Anti-traicking Initiative at Great. Fantastic. Thank you so much for coming. Um, and I'll let you all have a few moments to speak in a minute, but I'm going to go ahead and read the proclamation that we've prepared for you all this month. Uh, maybe you can just educate everyone afterwards as to why this is so important. Uh, really appreciate you being here tonight. So, whereas human trafficking is a crime and a human rights violation that involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to exploit individuals for labor or commercial sex. And it affects people of all ages, backgrounds, and communities. And whereas human trafficking occurs in both urban and suburban areas, often hidden in plain sight, and communities play a critical role in prevention through awareness, education, and early intervention. And whereas January is recognized nationally as human trafficking prevention month, providing an opportunity to raise awareness, promote prevention strategies, and reaffirm a commitment to protecting the dignity, safety, and human rights of all individuals. And whereas effective prevention and response efforts require survivor centered trauma-informed approaches that prioritize safety, empowerment and access to services. Uh and uh we have cast LA and Sunnitha anti-trafficking initiative at Loyal Law School. Both of them advance comprehensive services uh to survivors as well as policy reform, legal advocacy and community education. Whereas human trafficking is driven by structural vulnerabilities including economic insecurity, lack of access to services

and labor exploitation and prevention efforts are most effective when they strengthen community awareness, worker protections and access to trusted resources. And whereas the Los Angeles region, as the Los Angeles region prepares to host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, we've also talked here at this DAS about many of the large events coming uh in our region and other large-scale international events. This moment presents an opportunity for Santa Monica and the region to strengthen survivor centered prevention and harm reduction strategies, expand public education rooted in evidence, and ensure residents and visitors alike are informed about available resources and supports. Uh, and whereas human trafficking prevention month calls upon residents, businesses, community organizations, and visitors to learn the signs of trafficking, support survivor- centered organizations, and help connect individuals to trusted resources when concerns arise. Uh, we're going to proclaim the month of January here as human trafficking prevention month, and we encourage all members of the Santa Monica community to increase awareness, support survivor- centered organizations, and participate in efforts that promote safety, dignity, and freedom for all. Um, and I would welcome you both to to give some comments and then we'll come down for for a photo op uh with present the proclamations.

Great. Thank you so much and good evening, mayor and city council members. Uh, my name is Kay Buck and I'm the CEO of CAST Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. Uh, we really appreciate this recognition uh of January. It's human trafficking prevention month and it's a reminder that prevention efforts start locally. When cities take action, they send a clear message that exploitation has no place in our community. The greater Los Angeles region is viewed as a hub for human trafficking because of its size, its economic complexity, and concentration of industries where exploitations can occur. There's also a persistent myth that large events like the World Cup or the Olympics increase trafficking. However, there's actually no evidence supporting that. But the important thing is that you all are here supporting awareness and prevention of human trafficking which happens every single day, not just throughout LA County, but also in the city of Santa Monica. We've handled many cases here. And so we really appreciate that and we hope to partner with you in the future. Um, CAST was actually founded over 25 years ago uh with a case involving 72 Thai garment workers in Elmont. And so even though it's far away from Santa Monica, I know everyone felt it uh not just in LA County, but throughout the whole country. And since then, CAST has become the largest direct service provider to survivors of trafficking and their families um in the whole country. So we serve on average about 13 to,500 people and again we just so appreciate the partnership and raising awareness. Um not far from here CAST operates transitional housing uh for survivors and uh since we are the only provider of this specialized type of housing in the

county, we really welcome a partnership with the city of Santa Monica moving forward. Last year, uh, we saw more calls to our 247 hotline than ever before, and that's significant. What it means is that survivors are reaching out more because of legislation we were able to pass uh through the state and we have our posters in airports and in transit centers. So, we're do the outreach we're doing is working. Supporting local organizations that serve survivors is one of the most effective ways a community can act, including government. Much of Cass's work is federally funded, and that support is increasingly uncertain, as you've all read in the news. So, a strong local partnership is essential to sustaining these critical services. When we invest locally, we make our values unmistakable. that exploitation has no no place in cities like Santa Monica or in any city throughout LA County. Thank you again to the city of Santa Monica for recognizing CAST and for recognizing January as human trafficking prevention month. Thank you.

Good evening. Um good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Poustos and I'm a policy associate with the Sunita Jane Anti-trafficking Initiative where we focus on advocating and preventing human trafficking through policy. Um, and really I just want to say that human trafficking often still goes unrecognized and many because many people believe that it's still something that only happens in other countries or far away from their own communities. But in reality, it happens here in the US often in plain sight. And despite what people believe about just happening to immigrants, people that come here from other countries, it actually happens to legal residents and even USORN citizens. Um, it can look like someone being forced to work without pay, controlled by threats, or unable to leave an unsafe situation. When we don't understand what trafficking actually looks like, it's easier to miss and harder to stop. But here's the thing. Human trafficking is preventable. awareness, education, and properly funded services make a real difference. When workers know their rights, when community knows their warning signs, and when survivors can access housing, legal help, and support without barriers, exploitation becomes much harder to hide. This recognition is especially important as we prepare for the upcoming Olympic and FIFA games, where forced labor has been documented globally for years, particularly in construction, hospitality, and event services. When attention is focused on solely on sex trafficking, as my colleague mentioned, there's no evidence showing that that increases during large events. And because of that, labor trafficking often gets overlooked, leaving workers vulnerable to wage theft, dead bondage, and unsafe working condition. Prevention has to address all forms of trafficking and has to happen before harm occurs, not after. Thank you again for your leadership in recognizing human trafficking awareness month.

This one is you. Sorry.

[clears throat]

Okay, now we're on to item three, public input items under consent, calendar, and close session only. Um, we have two speakers for this item and then um since we did um agenda management, we have uh six uh eight speakers for items 7 A, 11 A, and 11B. does not. Okay, here we go. Uh, so I see Harvey Eder, Sam Shapiro, Klene, Jerry Rubin, Alex Elliot. This is the correct list, right, that I'm reading. All right, great. And we have two callers.

Great. Yep. Okay, so Harvey Eder, don't see him yet. Sam Shapiro Klein, Jerry Rubin, Alex Elliott, Mr. Klein requested um Shapiro Klein requested four minutes. Uh I was going to speak on two different subjects. So it's at your discretion.

All right. Uh first I'd like to speak on item 5J. Uh it is crucial to uh renew the emergency ordinance for the off-site affordable housing program in order to avoid potential litigation against the city. um this is a program that is going to move forward uh sooner or later. Uh it's just a matter of avoiding any potential legal risks and so I strongly encourage uh the council to move forward with the program now. Um, additionally, I would note like I am a renter uh and somebody who cares deeply about the affordability of the city as well as someone who lives very close to the relevant project sites. And um delaying this situation is just going to mean that we have a building that used to be a Starbucks that sits vacant for a longer amount of time. And so I would support uh I hope council members will recognize that in trying to move this more quickly. Um, second, I want to speak on item 4B, which is on the consent calendar, uh, renewing the city's program development fees. If you look closely at the staff report on this item, it's actually quite shocking how little has been collected by these development fees in the last fiscal year. Uh, and that's because the cost of development has basically stopped new housing being built in our city. Um, this is a real problem and if we want our community to be more affordable, we need to allow new housing. And that's really as simple as it is. And so I I would encourage the city council to consider uh suspending or temporarily um reducing these development fees in order to actually generate something which would happen alongside housing. Um to make case in point, if you'll notice in the report, the child care linkage fee generated about $1,100 last year. Uh additionally, the city is

spending money with uh a consulting firm in order to update the child care linkage fee nexus study. So the city is spending money to figure out how much to generate, how much to set as a tax, which generated $1,100. So, this is something that I think the city should really look closely at. Um, trying to make a more efficient use of our resources. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, Jerry Rubin, I don't see Harvey Ed. Jerry Rubin, Alex Elliot, Bruce Cooper, Commissioner Gordon.

Uh, thank you so much, Mayor Terosis. Uh Joey Rubin uh a member of the urban forest task force just speaking for myself and I'm speaking on 7A. I appreciate the analysis that's been done about our important boards and commissions and the only task force in the city. Now, I know the environmental task force was changed to a commission a while back and continue to do good work and I feel that this would be a good thing to have the environment the urban forest task force be a standalone commission. I know there's budget constraints. We'd rather meet every month, but we understand. So, we meet every other month. We usually have to go overtime. There's so much that needs to be done. I want to really recognize our wonderful landscape manager, Matthew Wells, and Robert Castanada Forester and the rest of our staff and all of the other six members on this task force for the work that they do. And I'd also like to say I know my late wife Marissa who would have been much more qualified than I would be to be on this task force would be very proud of the work they've done. She helped immensely to get the task force started and our former mayor Judy Abdu and our former city manager Susan McCarthy were the co-chairs of the first task force meetings many many many years ago. wanted to thank council member Ellis Raskin for his participation on the urban forest task force. So I hope that you support this. We're having our meeting tomorrow and we'll get more

input on it and thank you. In the city's literature, it says that next to our people, our trees are our most important resource. And thank you on

Thank you, Alex Elliott. All right. This isn't my first rodeo at this. I was up here five years ago saying why we need to keep the disabilities commission. And I'm here to just reiterate that. Um uh it's it was a bad idea then. It's a worse idea now. Um I'm going into my seventh year of this. I made a public comment. It's probably more articulate than what I'm going to say now cuz I rushed over here just to be here in person. It's not all um tidied up. But I've missed one meeting in 7 years and that was to go to Washington DC to talk about what's going on. Um it's not good. Um so I think you need us now more than ever. Um we're about 3 months away from the ADA really expanding to apply to um websites and mobile applications. I'm actually an expert on that and so are the people on my committee. We've been sharing information with you guys for years. Look out for accessibility overlays. scan everything with uh Adobe Acrobat accessibility checker and Microsoft Word checker. We give like specific things. I post them every meeting. I can't force you guys to read it, but what I can do is make it one click away and we've been doing that for years. I also from this report notice we only cost $10,000 a year. So, I just want to give a shout out to my commissioners and our staff liaison for the surplus value we've created. Um, but most importantly, um, we advise on the ADA, but you're suggesting we're only in the housing and human services. It's way bigger than that. Um, it applies to voting. Everything you guys touch is a disability issue. So, you're constraining our advisory view. But most importantly is um there's six seats dedicated to people with disabilities. Those are gone. Um, that's like a civil rights issue that people before me fought for for a long time. So, um, I'm going to be there tomorrow. Um, and I hope I don't have to report to my disabilities commission that we're gone. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Bryce Cooper, Commissioner Gordon, Eve Lopez, Andrew Gladill, [snorts] Mr. I'm sorry, Bryce Cooper requested I'm going to give mine up because she said she'd like to speak after that gentleman. Is it possible they're on the same item? You do you mean like you're splitting your time or you just let her go in front of me and live? Oh, yeah, that's fine. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. And uh Commissioner um Gordon requested four minutes. Okay. Yes.

I mean I'm on may not need four minutes. I don't think so. I um that Thank you very much. I'm Commissioner Gordon. I serve with Chair Elliott um on the disability commission and happy new year to everybody and um he um very we do actually we do have a meeting tomorrow at 6:30. We'd like you guys to show up um at least consider it because we haven't seen you. We I think we've seen the city manager. Thank you for attending our meeting. I believe that is very nice to your commitment. Um we are very distressed and we're vehemently opposed to you wanting to combine um the disability commission, housing commission, and human services commission into a single seven member housing and human services commission. Um it really seems to us as though you're going out of your way to eliminate us. Um and so we are vehemently opposed to that. Um I feel so much better that Chair Elliott has done a tremendous amount of work and has articulated that for you today. Uh I um it will be detrimental to vulnerable people especially considering everything that's been going on with the building. Um and and that's another concern that we do have is that there doesn't seem to be any ADA requirements for the monoliths that are being built. Um no accessibility whatsoever. I've attended the architectural review board meetings and it's somewhat distressing. So um I just appreciate my fellow Santa Monicans for being here to speak out against it. Um uh we do uh want to say that we believe that the disability commission should be a standalone commission to remain as it is along with the housing commission. Um it just really seems as though you're trying to erase us uh and erase our voice. And uh I I know that this is just

a study group for right now, but I thought it was important for us to attend. and we'd like to see some of you at our disability commission tomorrow in this very same room at 6:30. And I will just go ahead and donate my time to this gentleman who was nice enough to allow me to go before him. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Gordon. Mr. Cooper,

Mr. Cooper also requested four minutes. Thank you members of the city council and I do see every one of you that looks at me and looks back and I appreciate this job is not easy. We understand this. This is not something that uh for the faint of heart. We we see what happens. Tonight has seemed to center around transparency in all aspects and we appreciate your best ability to do that um transparently to do your best to review the law and the legal precedent for a lot of these um items that are before you. We also know that you guys rely on subcommittees and commissions to understand to the best of your ability very complex issues and sometimes those subcommittees do need review from time to time and that's what we're speaking about right now. Tonight we're calling for even more transparency and I would just like to ask a simple and reasonable question. Um I happen to notice that on topic 7A the review of the airport commission is absent from this evening's discussion on topics. It's also identified as the second most costly to taxpayers. That's the commission that reviews all operating functions with the airport, not just the closure of the airport or proposed closure of the airport, the actual operation and continued running of the airport until the date which US Santa Monica have the opportunity to close uh close that airport. Why does Santa Monica maintain an airport commission tasked with advising an the management of a major public asset? an airport with a complex operation, safety obligations, and significant revenue when not a single member appears to have any aviation experience or large facility management experience in their background or professional repertoire. Would this council find it responsible to appoint an advisory board on women's reproductive health made entirely of men or a medical board composed of people with no medical experience or furthermore an educational board with no teachers? That said, expertise matters, representation matters, and competence

more than anything matters. Advisory bodies exist to inform decisions not merely to forward agendas such as closure of an airport when its charter is to advise on all operational matters of a functioning airport. This is still a community resource as long as it's open. This is a community resource available and open to all Santa Monica residents, not just a few. I strongly urge this council to reconsider the composition of the airport commission immediately and appoint members with relevant aviation and management experience to balance the commission in its current um composition. Please also review the close proximity that some of the members in this current commission live in relation to the airport's flight path and consider this a potential conflict of interest now that we are bringing up some conflicts of interest in other aspects of the city council management. Thank you very much for your time and again we know this is not easy. These are complex issues and we thank you for our voice.

Thank you Eve Lopez. Andrew Gladill I have Eve Lopez in here twice. Yes. Miss Lopez, can you confirm if you're signing up for one or two or more more items? Um two items. So 7 A and 11 C. And I have a photo that should be displayed for 7A. So four minutes.

Correct. Yes, thank you. Um, so good evening and happy new year. Um, regarding item 7A, so thank the staff for the report they did on the airport comms and commissions. And I want to talk just a little bit um about what Bryce just mentioned, which happens to be the airport commission, which is totally absent from that staff report. And I'm it's very quizzical. Why uh why is there no comments about the airport commission at all? The reference is only on a snapshot which shows that the airport commission cost the city the second highest of all boards and commissions. And you have to ask yourselves why why 650 hours of staff time was spent supporting the airport commission. Much higher than any other board and commission. Again, why? Well, I would h attending every single one of those meetings, I can offer a reasonable explanation because of the five commissioners who are on that board, not one is a pilot, not one is an airport user, and not one has any aviation knowledge or experience. Not one. However, all five of them are part of proclosure, pro park groups, and there's nothing wrong with having those alliances. But when it is the composition of a technical board that requires FAA knowledge, regulatory information, and the ability to understand complex regulations, you are failing us residents. I'm a lawyer and a pilot. I'm a commercial pilot. I'm an instructor. This stuff has taken years to understand and grasp and I can't even pretend to have the breath of knowledge in this very regulatory area. So, I urge you to rethink that. And lastly, the picture on the on the screen here, three of the

seven I'm sorry, three of the five commissioners live within a,000 ft of the airport. That's a violation of FPPPC18702 subsection 2 and yet nothing is done about it. Three of the five live off the end of the runway. How is that transparency? How is that representative of of us residents in this city? Regarding items uh uh 11C, um I respectfully urge the council not to ratify decisions made before the Zwick conflict. Sorry, we're not hearing public comment on 11C right now. We're just hearing comments on 11 A and B.

Okay. I my apologies. Um so I would appreciate having staff directed to have a the airport commission an analysis done as required by resolution 1150. Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Um, Andrew Glad Hill, Pam Okconor, and I believe that's it. Yeah, one caller. Oh, and one caller.

Okay. Um, [clears throat] Mayor Terosis, uh, Mayor Pro Timmsick, council members, city manager. I'm Andrew Gladill, and I serve at council's pleasure, of course, as the chair of the urban uh forest task force, which is up for discussion tonight. We have our next meeting tomorrow night as well. Um, we're at the Central Library 6 PM. You're all welcome. Among other things on the agenda, we'll be hearing about a new study by staff on young tree mortality, which will help spend money more wisely. Listening to the concerns of a resident about the management of trees in front of her house. And at our last meeting, we applauded the planting of 110 trees in the planned expansion of Memorial Park. and we look forward to renewed discussion of a private tree ordinance um to help protect the city's canopy. That's the sort of thing we do working closely with Matthew Wells and his excellent team operating if you will at the very grassroots of local engagement. Of course, we'll do that whether we're a task force or a commission, but making our group a city commission would be a wonderful way of celebrating the importance of trees to Santa Monica. We are all part owners of 36,000 trees which form the most visible, most beneficial asset of our city and the most beautiful contributor to our collective well-being. As your appointees, we will work with your staff to help ensure the trees in our urban canopy remain Santa Monica's crown jewels into the next 150 years. I've submitted a letter of support um for you all to uh for public record. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you. Pam Okconor.

Good evening, council. I'm Pam Oconor. I've worked for the past 30 years as a historic preservation consultant in Southern California, also for municipal governments in Southern California. And I'm your land one of your landmarks commissioners. So, I'm here to support the change to the ordinance um in your study session 7A, which would change composition of the landmarks commission. If you had the chance to pulse through those hundreds of pages and read the landmarks commission re report, you will have seen that over the last year um reported in the in the document two of the three Mills Act projects were structure of merits. So we're seeing this new trend where lesser properties that are not designated as landmarks are eligible to the Mills Act. And you recently initiated review of the Mills Act. Um another aspect of the landmarks ordinance. Well, the ordinance is outdated in terms of best historic preservation practices. So rather than taking a peacemeal approach of we're going to do the Mills Act review and now we're going to do composition, it's time to do a robust review of the landmarks ordinance and out and updated. It's been over 30 years since it was updated. Again, it needs it does not need this peacemeal approach. So I don't know how you take that upon you, whether you can give direction tonight, whether you put it on another agenda, but let's not waste any time. We've seen and you've already again, we'll have not, if you pass this today, we'll have done two pieces of a peace meal approach. Let's do a real robust whole holistic review of the landmarks ordinance. And in conclusion, I do want to comment quickly on one close session item. Good job appointing Denise Anders, Warren Anderson as your interim city clerk. She is wonderful. Thank you.

Thank you. Um it it appears on my list uh madam clerk that we have two uh items uh two two speakers or Mr. Elliot appeared in person. Oh that was it. Okay. Uh Jacob Wasserman.

Can you hear me? Yes. Yes we can hear you.

Okay. Great. Um I'm speaking on 7A. Hi, my name is Jacob Wasserman, resident of Wilmont um planning commissioner, but speaking for myself tonight. Um yeah, I just wanted to thank staff um for the work on the boards and commissions review. Um two things to note. One is I I want to just second the recommendation to have a special meeting for the annual appointments to notify um applicants that it's happening because um uh a year and a half ago I came once to the uh go in person. I after waiting a long time it was actually pushed to the next meeting after I'd stayed there far past bedtime. Then I came back the next two weeks later. Um didn't get appointed that time. came back a year later, stayed up past midnight again. Um, so it would be nice if either a special meeting or it's like this item happens before close session um just to give the applicants their respect. Um, and then second, there's an item about um getting rid of council liaison, something about undue influence. I've never served on a commission when there's been a council leazison, so I can't speak to it from personal experience. Um but at least for the planning commission our coun the power of the city council to name a council leazison is in the charter. Now it says may appoint one. So I suppose you could by rule just decline to use that power. Um but I guess I would just give it a second thought before you blanket decide to not have council leaison. Um I could see the role having a lot of uses to build relationships between the different commissions and city council. Um and especially as a charter enumerated power. um just give it a second thought and if there's good reason to get rid of that alto together. Thanks so much and happy new year.

Thanks so much. So with that being said, we're going to move on. That concludes public comment on these items. We are now going to move on to the consent calendar. Does anyone uh need to recuse themselves? Well, uh, yeah, mayor and council, I'm going to be recusing myself from the dig digital billboard items tonight. Uh, these are items, uh, 4F, 4G, 4H, 4 I, and 4J. Uh, for the reasons I previously articulated, uh, my law firm, Hansenbridge LLP, represents a digital billboard company, Outfront Media. Uh, Outfront Media does not operate any digital billboards in Santa Monica. Uh, I do not have any financial interest in this matter, but out of an abundance of caution, I will be recusing from these items.

Great. Uh, Council Member Still, [snorts] actually I'm recusing myself from 5J. I don't know if I do it right now. Uh, 5J's close session. We'll deal with that in one moment. Okay. Um, and I did not get any notifications to pull any items on the consent calendar. Correct. I did that either. So, uh, does anyone want to move the consent calendar with the exception of the items that council member, um, Raskin just listed? So, moved. Second by. Great. Okay. Uh, council member Negrete is still absent. Council member Hall, yes. Council member Raskin, yes. Mayor Protowick, yes. Council member Snell, yes. Council member Ernit Skaya, yes. And Mayor Troas,

yes. And motion passes. Great. We will be getting that uh AI enforcement in our bike lanes very soon here. Um all right. I'm just saying I'm filling some time as Council Rascin is walking out of the chambers. Uh we now have 4FG HI and J before us. Does anyone want to make make a motion on that? I'll make a motion on those items. Second. And that was um Zik uh council members. Yes. Council member Snell, yes. Mayor Promwick, yes. Council member Raskin is absent. Council member Hall, yes. Council member Negrante is also absent, and Mayor Trous,

yes. Okay, motion passes. Great. So, we um we will go into close session in a moment, but given the agenda management items, we are now going to be hearing uh item seven. Um 11 A and Oh, we're hearing 11 A and 11 B and then item seven. My apologies. Thank you, Council Member Raskin for returning. Um I think [clears throat] uh these items are uh before us A and B. Is it a joint staff report? Yeah. Okay. And it's a redevelopment successor agency. So we need to do the roll call. Great. Thank you.

So we're recessing the council meeting at 7:08. Um and uh the payment for the council meeting as a redevelopment agency is $0 per meeting. Um so I'll do the roll call. [clears throat] Um council member Negrete still absent. Council member Hall present. Council member Rasin present. Council member Snell present. Council member Zernitaya here. Chair Promswick here. And chair Troas. Yes here.

We have a quorum. Okay. And then uh 11A I'll just read while you set that up Oscar. Um adoption of resolution authorizing insure issuance of tax allocation refunding bonds series 2026 refinancing of the 2006 uh tabs and the 2011 tabs. Uh item the floor is yours.

Okay. Good evening chair and members of the assessor agency board. Tonight, we are here to seek your approval on the proposed issuance of the 2026 tax allocation refunding bonds. This action would allow the successor agency to refinance to refinance outstanding redevelopment agency debt and achieve meaningful savings. Uh I want to remind you this item is a revenue increase element as part of the city's realignment plan. So with us we have our finance team, financing team, our municipal advisors, bond disclosure council, underwriters and fiscal consultants. All of whom have helped us to evaluate market conditions and confirm that this refunding is both timely and financially advantageous to the city. So tonight, staff is requesting adoption of a resolution authorizing the issues of the 2026 refunding bonds. The purpose of this refund is straightforward. Uh refinance older, higher interest redevelopment agency bonds to achieve savings. Those savings directly increase the residual property tax revenue that flows back to the city and other local taxing agencies, including the school district. Importantly, state law only allows refundings when they produce uh savings. By way of background, the former redevelopment agency is issued bonds in 2006 and 2011 with a combined outstanding principle of approximately 56.9 million. These bonds carry interest rates between 4.5 and 5.9%. [snorts] And are secured by tax increment from the earthquake red uh recovery redevelopment area. A key advantage is that these bonds can be redeemed at any time without penalty. Under the dissolution act, refundings are allowed when they generate debt service savings. The proposed transaction would issue the

20 2026 bonds to refund the previous bonds. This refunding does not extend the final maturity debt of the b of the debt. The final interest rates and savings will be determined at a time of pricing, but based on current market conditions, the refunding is projected to produce substantial savings. on the slide. Based on preliminary estimates as of December, total debt service savings are projected to be 12.2 million. Uh that's an average annual savings of approximately 763,000. The net present value savings are about 12.2% which is well above industry benchmarks. So these savings ultimately flow back as additional property tax revenues to the taxing agencies that shared in the redevelopment property tax trust fund. This includes the city, the school district, the county, and other local agencies. The projected savings and debt service means that the city's annual property tax revenues would increase by approximately 106,000. So tonight's actions include authorizing the issuance of the 2026 bonds, approving the indenture es escore agreement and bond purchase agreement and authorizing staff to complete uh related steps including acknowledging the good of faith estimates in the savings report. These are standard components of a tax allocation bonding bond refunding. If approved tonight, the financing team will move forward with the required approvals from the county oversight board and the California Department of Finance. We anticipate returning to the successor agency in March for approval of preliminary official statement. Pricing and closing of the bonds are expected in April of 2026 subject to market conditions and timely approvals.

[snorts] So, in closing, this refunding represents a timely opportunity to reduce debt service and increase property tax revenues for the city as proposed under the city's realignment plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing the issues of the 2026 refunding bonds. And with this, I end my presentation and we're here for questions.

Great. Thank you so much. I don't see anyone in the queue. Uh if folks have questions or want to make a motion, Council Member Raskin. Uh with great thanks to the team that uh did the hard work uh to save our city some money with this uh I'm going to make the motion to approve the staff recommended items including the um uh SQA findings here. Um can I combine that with a motion to approve the minutes or is that we have to call it separately? I think you're making a motion to approve uh 11 A and 11B. Yeah, to approve 11 A and 11B. Yes, you've already received public comment on both. You're fine. Okay. Uh, so moved. Second.

Great. Um, I do see council member Zern Sky in the queue. Did you have a question, comment, or concern? Just just had a quick question. Um, could you go back to what the interest rates were for the existing bonds that are going to be refunded? Sure. So between 4 point So the the coupon rates are before between 4.5 to 8.9. Okay. Um, do we know roughly what we expect the interest rates to be now when with the new issuance?

Approximately 3.6%. 3.6. Okay. And if in the future the interest rates go even lower, would we potentially be able to once again reissue new bonds and refund? Yeah, we would evaluate and do an analysis and determine if we want to recommend for C for the SSR agency to approve refunding again. Great. Thank you very much. That was all my questions. Great. So, I believe we have a motion on the floor and a second. So, maybe we can do the roll call vote now. Agency member Negrete is still absent. Agency member Hall, yes. Agency member Rascin, yes. Chair Prom Zwick, yes. Agency member Snow, yes. Agency members, yes. and chair Trous. Yes,

that carries. Thank you so much. I know that a lot of work goes into this. Just because we don't have questions doesn't mean we don't care very deeply. So, thank you all so much for being here. Um, we are going to move now to item seven. And who will be presenting that? Is that going to be the clerk's office? Okay. questions. We have we have an agenda.

Okay. And I'm sorry I might have to go back to two different desks, but um good evening. Maria Daknai um Wizzner, assistant city clerk. Um okay. In 2021, the city clerk was tasked with a comprehensive review of advisory boards and commissions every 5 years. On July 8th, council directed the city clerk to return with this study session, uh, examining possibilities to reorganize, consolidate, and deprecate boards and commissions. The first review led to consolidation of three commissions, reducing the number of boards and commissions to 21 and total members to 1334. Uh the review also led to policies such as restoring the council leaison role, a nepotism policy, and standardizing term limits for members. Um it also revised internal processes um such as updating templates for agendas, minutes, and bylaws. Uh it uh asked it required us to review our trainings and um offer them on a regular basis and expand outreach to new or more community events. In the last five years, the city was mandated to create five new boards and commissions, bringing us up to 26 bodies and 162 members. Uh because of this, we did not come with proposals to create other bodies because we want to streamline the boards and commissions program first in order to accommodate new ones. And because of the number of staff involved, we focused on uh city council, city staff, and participating chairs and vice chairs. Still not looking. Okay. So, for this review, we focus on city council appointed boards and commissions that are supported by city staff. So, this is all of the bodies that you make

appointments on. Uh we did not review boards of nonprofits and district boards um supported by other organizations. So, [snorts] that bottom right half is gone. Um, of the boards and commissions reviewed, the highlighted bodies here uh are those with proposed efficiencies and I'll go over them by proposal type. So, we have no proposals for the bodies that are not highlighted as they are regulated uh as they are regulatory or mandated by law. So consolidations um staff proposes that the transit occupancy tax committee hold their annual meeting with a quarterly meeting of the council audit subcommittee as both are supported by finance and by resolution the toot committee must meet annually between February to May and the audit subcommittee meets quarterly in February, May, August and November. So because of the flexibility of the toot committee meetings um the tot committee's meeting schedule the joint meeting could take place in February or May. [snorts] Um we also propose that the clean beaches tax oversight committee hold their quarterly meetings with the commission on the sustainability and the environment and be supported administratively by the office of sustainability. And by resolution, uh, clean beaches shall not meet less than by annually and allows the committee to set its meeting schedule uh, which is currently quarterly on the second Wednesdays in February, May, August, and November. And uh, through their bylaws, the sustainability commission meets monthly on the third Mondays. And so Clean Beaches could join sustainability's February, May, August, and November meetings, but it would be a schedule adjustment for clean beaches members. And uh both joint meeting proposals

would save staff time on meeting support, allow members of both bodies to be exposed to the other's work and allow more engagement with city staff and meeting attendees. Um staff proposes consolidating the disabilities housing and human services commission into a new seven member body called the housing and human services commission that would meet monthly, continue to have the option to form ad hoc committees and continue to be supported by the same department. The new commission would be a unified body dedicated to discussing and considering the diverse and intersecting issues impacting underserved Santa Monicans. It would also enable more focused engagement with city staff and clarify the new commission's role as an adviser to council on department matters. Work plans for the three commissions would be consolidated into one that aligns with the scope of the new commission and the department's work. and exist existing members of the three commissions are encouraged to apply for new four-year terms and continue participating in ad hoc committees um in continue participating as ad hoc committee members or meeting attendees. The council may also prioritize some seats for applicants with certain expertise and experience ensuring diversity and continuity continuity of the three commission's work. So, uh, staff also proposes modifying the membership of the arts and public safety reform oversight commissions to seven voting members. Now, the public safety reform would still retain two positions for members between the ages of 18 to 22 and the one non- voting exeicio member. And we are proposing a seven member body because it is consistent with other boards and commissions. It would allow for absences

and recusals to still have um quorum for meetings and supermajority votes if needed and allow staff to dedicate time to each and every member. The arts commission currently has two vacancies that can be uh removed and public safety for public safety reform. This can be done in two years by allowing two members whose terms expire this year on January 30th to complete their service and then the dissolving those seats and then doing the same with two more positions next year. [snorts] Uh and um again members of these bodies um are are also encouraged to continue participating with their commissions as attendees and ad hoc members and to keep applications on file should we have an un an expected uh vacancy. Um, another proposal for the public safety reform is to broaden its composition by increasing the maximum age of the two youth seats from 22 to 25 uh and allowing ABS applicants who work in the city with the required knowledge, experience or demonstrated commitment to be appointed. And increasing the age range for the youth seats uh from 18 to 25 would allow current members who age out to be reappointed and include recent graduates or young professionals with less school conflicts. Um and who could it would include recent graduates or young professionals with less school conflicts and um uh who could better commit to the commission. Um staff also proposes that the landmarks commission broaden residency requirements for the registered architect architect his architectural historian and the three general member seats. the residency requirements for the local historian in California

realtor. Um we recommended that that remain. Both commissions um the public safety and the landmarks commission currently require all members to be residents um by and by including community members who work in the city and may have a vested interest in the city and neighboring residents would require knowledge or experience for these bodies. We feel that this could increase our applicant pool. [snorts] Um [clears throat] for the urban forest task force, we um propose that it be converted to a commission and remove the requirements of having at least three members be current or past ISA certified arborists. The proposed commission would retain the requirements of being members who live or work in the city and have professional experience in urban forestry, landscaping and horiculture. Um staff sees a permanent need for this body and that certification should not be a strict requirement for members as subject matter experts are on hand that are able to help members make informed decisions. Um if um council needs additional information, we can definitely report back at a future meeting. But if we are to move forward with these consolidation um uh proposals, then the number of boards and commissions could be reduced to 24 bodies with 134 members. We would then return with amendment resol amended resolutions and ordinances um likely effective July 1st of this year and fill remaining vacancies. And uh last two sections um as for the boards and commissions resolution which is attachment A of the report these are what we seek feedback on. Uh the first bullet are is the appointment process. We ask council to consider adding to the appointment process by inviting applicants to the meeting to speak about their

qualifications during public comment. And uh for annual appointments, a special meeting may be scheduled. The next bullet is about the waiting period. So for members who serve the maximum number of consecutive terms, we're proposing reducing the wait time to serve on the same body again from four years to a year. This would be consistent with the one-year wait time to serve on a different body after completing service and help uh and we hope to help retain a our pool of interested applicants. Um the third bullet is regarding the annual dinner and presentation of annual reports. The city clerk is charged to hold an annual dinner with council and boards and commissions to thank members for their service and hear annual reports. And if the dinner cannot be held then the then presentations may be given at a council meeting but due to the number of boards and commissions and council's full schedule full meeting schedule um reports have been submitted via information item which is attachment C of your report. Um therefore we propose removing references to the dinner and formalizing the method of receiving reports via info item. Uh however, if council desires to desires for us to um explore reestablishing the dinner uh or some kind of rec recognition event, then funding would need to be restored. Um fourth bullet is attendance at meetings. The resol resolution allows for no more than two unexcused absences from any six consecutive regular meetings, otherwise the position is vacated. Um, and as it's written, it has caused confusion on how to count absences for bodies that meet less frequently or if the six meetings can occur in a fiscal or calendar year. Um, it also doesn't resolve sporadic um, absences that um, cause issues for boards and commissions. So, we propose that unexcused absences be limited to

two within a fiscal year and the automatic vacation of the seat if that occurs regardless of uh a body's meeting schedule or meeting type. And as for providing council with the attendance records in June and December, we request to delete December um as uh all terms end in June. it no longer requires us to come back to you twice a year um for a second round of annual appointments and attendance reports in December. Um last bullet is regarding the council liaison's role. Um this role was restored during the last boards and commissions review and the role excluded quasi judicial bodies and limited service uh to to um limited services for council members to no more than two bodies a year. Um but a recent request for a council liaison was denied because of concerns uh with having undue influence over boards and commissions and limiting their ability to form independent recommendations. And so because of this concern, we ask that council consider removing the council leaison role. Um last three slides. Um I just wanted to go over the staff time and cost table um which is attachment two in the report because we've um received questions on it. Um costs were estimated using salaries uh at step three with benefits using this this fiscal year's rates. And so on this slide u my office provides secretarial um support for the audit subcommittee and clean beaches. And we recently um updated uh we we recently had some staffing changes. Um so the the costs are slightly different on this slide compared to the report. And on this last one, the landmarks commission's uh cost um is due to the higher amount of work by two staff members dedicated to historic preservation work which is a major

function of city planning that is tied to daily operations. So that's why um that uh amount is high. And lastly, um, for the planning commission estimates were incomplete as staff's work also overlaps with the daily operations and commission report uh, commission support. So that was my last slide. This ends my presentation and um, I do have um, members of city staff to help with questions. Great. We [clears throat] really appreciate all the work that's gone into this and thank staff for for being here as well. It looks like council member Zernkaya would like We'll do questions and then comments. Is that amendable? Okay.

Thank you so much for all of the work that y'all have done on this. I know it was a massive undertaking. So, I appreciate that you clarified that the landmarks commission appears to uh have kind of a higher staff cost per year because it includes standard day-to-day tasks. Could you please kind of clarify why those were included for the purpose of calculation of the cost of the land of administrating administering uh landmarks commission? Yes. And Jingu will answer your question.

Um I think just to augment what was shared you know just I think just to give a little bit of context. Um historic preservation is one of the major core functions of the city planning division. the others being development review and policy development. What you're not seeing on there and that's why it's an asterisk for the planning commission is that it was actually really hard for us to pull this apart. Um we serve three quas judicial bodies within CDD. If we gave an estimate for planning commission, I think we were up at like $910,000. There's just so much policy permits, you know, that go to the planning commission. The landmarks commission is not dissimilar in the sense that it is really hard for us to divorce like the day-to-day operations of historic preservation from what is under the purview of the landmarks commission. So what's included in that estimate is time for example for certificates of appropriateness designations and there's even workups things that don't end up there like we do a lot of um you know owners reach out right consultations things like that that are within the umbrella of the landmarks commission also included in that is mills act monitoring which is a really really intensive um you know work effort that we've been undertaking um the commission obviously makes a recommendation on those things um you know again on policy and program I just want to also compare it to like for example the architecture review board. You know, so much stuff is done actually at the staff level. There's actually very few things that the board reviews anymore and they don't make anywhere near the same level of policy recommendation that the planning commission marks commission does. So, hope that just kind of gives that overall context.

So, would it be accurate to say that the reason it's so high is because it includes things that are tangentially related or within the scope of landmarks but not directly, right? Okay.

It may not necessarily be at eventually it rolls up to the meaning. It's hard for us to divorce back because we may spend months of work to bring a designation application or CFA to the commission or something on update on a program or whatever it is, right? Like it's hard to divorce that from the daily work. So this these are estimates I I truly own, you know, it may not be totally perfect, right? But it is like it is we do dedicate resources to what is a really important function. So the the staff time I'm sorry percentages do those also is that's just because it's the work is tangentially related although not direct at the direction of the creation. Correct. Yeah. Yeah.

Um and let me see here. Um this one is is a question for the city clerk. Um how much does the annual boards and commissions gener generally cost? I know we haven't had one in a couple years. Um the last time that we attempted to host one was in 2020. Um the just for the dinner alone the um estimates came to 30,000 just for the dinner. But um I want to remind you that you know there's the annual report the video report aspect of the dinner. Um back in 2020 um due to the covered restructuring um City TV who uh assisted with producing the video was um affected uh their staffing and their budget was affected. So um you know it would definitely be a little more over um 30,000 for the dinner, but we would need to come back with better estimates on the video report if you wanted to still incorporate that.

Got it. Well, [clears throat] if we were to remove the uh requirement for the annual boards and commissions dinner, but still do the um [clears throat] and still do the annual updates as information items, would members of the commissions still be able to come and uh comment as representatives of the commissions to provide a an overview or summary as opposed to just assuming everybody in uh everybody reads everything? Yeah. Um, I don't see why not. I think I'm looking to our attorneys just I think we're we're just we just want to make sure that um no discussions are held and it's mostly ceremonial and you're we're giving out reports. Yeah. Um go ahead.

So that's correct. There's a way to structure it if council um has such a desire to do so. I think you have options um uh that we'd be happy to work through. Okay. Thank you. Um I I would also say um when we do come back um we can also look at other options. I mean um training is is um one thing that we have a hard time um getting count um members to to complete because there's so many there's so many and it happens at different times and um I would want to look at whether we can address that all in one day um including a recognition event or a dinner. So um yes if you would like more information we can come back with that.

Okay thank you. Um, and then on the housing commission and housing authority board, how does the HAB function within the housing commission and what kind of support do they get to accomplish their objectives? Um, would the city attorney please help me answer this? So, the housing commission um basically they review the administrative plans and then they make recommendations to the housing authority board advisory only.

Okay. Um, let's see here for the Okay, so for the landmarks, go sorry, going back to landmarks commission, why why is there a recommendation to remove residency requirements for five of the seven seats? Are we having a difficult time getting applicants or um what's the challenge there? Um, I'll ask Stephanie Wright to help me with this question.

Hi, good evening, council members. Yeah, often we will have only one application for um such a position and as a quasi judicial body it's a really important function. So we think that expanding that pool would be really helpful to the council to make uh make a better choice. Thank you. and we and would we hypothetically still be able to uh include a preference for some sort of solid connection to the city even if they're not a resident here currently? Certainly. I mean there's there you can review all their qualifications and prioritize as you wish.

Okay, got it. Thank you. Um let me see here. And I think I have one more question. Apologies. Let me find it here. uh for the urban forest task force, hopefully soon to be commissioned. Um why are why is the recommendation to remove the requirement for three members to be current or past um ISA members? Matthew Wells.

Um um good evening. I I think that I don't think we need that level of expertise. It's also because Santa Monica is relatively small and there's not that many arborists out there. um it's difficult to find them who don't maybe do consultancy or potentially do consultancy for us. So I think that as long as they've got a lands we've got some members with landscaping um some tree knowledge things like that um some you know a deep interest in trees again with the technical expertise from city staff that's you know we still function well. So we could remove that requirement and yet still have the necessary expertise on the commission combined with city staff to make good decisions for our for urban forest. Okay. Absolutely correct. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Those were all my questions. Great. Council member Hall. And if anyone else has questions, put yourself in the queue.

Thank you, Mayor. Um there was a lot of talk in the community as we approached this study session around potential consolidation of other commissions that would not that were not recommended. Uh for instance the ARB building fire life safety planning commission as you know they they kind of talk about planning and building issues. Um, and then also, and again, I'm not saying that I supported these recommendations or or these thoughts in the community, but the urban forest task force with the sustainability, environment, and environmental justice commissions. Um, do you have any comment on why we didn't look at or are not including those as recommendations?

I will ask um, director Jingo about con consolidating CDD commissions. Um, so I guess I can address the building fire life safety. That's a building code requirement, state requirement. We can't collapse that into something else. You know, the planning commission has a certain level of expertise. Um, collapsing the ARB or other commissions, you know, into it. I think we would have to give really understand what are we trying to achieve? You know, what's the concern? Um, you know, to us, it's not a heavy lift to staff these boards and commissions. as I explained is part and parcel of our work you know we have very effective and streamlined processes the ARB itself I if that is a question if you know I think we're trying to understand is the concern about like speed of review is it housing projects I'd want to remember that you know design review is required for like commercial projects as well you know and does the planning commission have the expertise that we have you know design professionals on the RB that perform that function a lot of things have been downloaded to the staff level. It's a it's a function that works you know well and you know we believe it's necessary and you know collapsing it into the planning commission again you know there's not that level of expertise within the commission also the the ARB itself is uh decisions are appealed currently to the planning commission so you know I think we would certainly be happy to come back with options to address whatever the concern is with you know but I I I think just you know collapsing [clears throat] the commissions together for the sake of doing it without understanding what we're trying to accomplish. Um, you know, we it's it's not something, you know, that I I would personally recommend. Um, you know, it's not a a major burden, you know, on the on the department to be staffing these boards and commissions.

Thank you. Thank you. And does anyone want to address Thanks. Um I can talk a little bit about the um why the recommendation was not to collapse the urban forest task force into say the um commission on sustainability and the environment is purely because I see the commission on sustainability and the environment they're very you know it's nearly academia right they're very highly qualified it's very technical it's very policy based um whereas the urban forest task force what we currently do now is very much sort of a community sounding board on the tree outside my my home is dropping berries or I'm a developer I need to remove one tree put in a you know a curb cut or you know things like that. Also species selection in parks or species selection on a street things like that. So it's very much sort of grassroots and and also it's it's also the the task force on um urban forest task force is also really a check on whether the city staff are following the the vision and the um the sort of the goals of the urban forest task force. So it's it's I would say it's a little bit more sort of hands-on versus policy in academia. Um, and that's why we don't really see it as a good mix. And I don't think we want to sort of bog down our commission on sustainability in the environment with sort of essentially day-to-day urban forestry issues.

Thank you, Council Member Hall. Um, I we do have um the staff leazison for the commission on um sustainability and the environment on the line. Um James, I don't know if you want to add anything to this question.

Um James here. Um, good evening, uh, council members, city mayor. Uh, no, I I think, uh, Matthew Wells, um, covered it all. The only other thing I would add with regards to trying to combine the urban task force with the commission on sustainabilities, we we only have 12 meetings per year and the urban forest um, would meet six six times a year. So it would sort of um potentially uh prevent the effectiveness and integrity of our sustainability commission to be able to really give enough time and input on the items uh that we do here. And we have um very full agenda items for those 12 meetings a year that usually run uh until like 10 o'clock at night. you want to

uh just one quick follow-up question for our planning director. Uh following up on council member Hall's question about the ARB and planning commission. Uh just for the public's understanding, it I'm correct in saying that the planning commission serves as the appellet body for the ARB. And so that takes an important function that otherwise could um you know be work that flows up in appellet capacity to say the city council for example. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

Great. I have one question. I put myself in the queue if that's okay. Um, [clears throat] this is related to the consolidation of housing and human services commission. So, I don't know if there's someone here who wants to speak to that, but how are we ensuring So, I I hear the reasoning why we're doing this. Um but how are we going to ensure that the proposed consolidation uh particularly for this uh these three um strengthen the expertise and lived experience uh representation rather than diluting it

good evening mayor mayor and council members Mark Emerald housing and human services uh that's a great question mayor I think that's something that council can fulfill tonight or when you take formal action in the future by designating a prioritization for either existing members of the commission's proposed for consolidation or identifying specific sets of expertise or live experience that could be used as criteria for applicants when appointing members to the body.

Okay. And then sorry I do have one that answers my question. I guess that's you're basically saying it's a policy decision for us. Um, in terms of workload, just is the city clerk's office planning to measure whether these changes are actually resulting in better outcomes, clearer recommendations, and in reduced administrative strain because if we're going through this whole process, we want to know that it worked.

Um, right now our only tool, our only performance metric metric tool is the annual reports um and the the work plan. Um I think departments can incorporate some of these metrics in their department work plans. Um that that is an option but um yeah if that's something that the council would like us to look at how to measure um how how to measure um that these improvements are are are um giving us the outcomes that we're looking for. We can definitely do that.

Yeah. I mean, I would just say that um that that sounds decentralized. We would want to be able to actually track through the clerk's office or I'll speak for myself um that that there are efficiencies happening here and specifically that there are actual impact like there are positive impacts as a result of the consolidation. So, we could talk further about that, but I think that gets my question. Yeah. Um we we would have to um we we can come back with more information. Okay. Uh I don't see we're not in I don't see any other questions. Do people have comments? Council members Ernet Skaya.

Thank you. Um so my comments I'll kind of go through the specifics on the different commissions and those recommendations. Uh so I agree with holding the to the transient occupancy tax advisory committee annual meeting as a joint meeting with the audit subcommittee. I'm uh I agree with holding quarterly joint meetings of clean beaches and ocean partial parcel tax citizens oversight committee and the commission on sustainability environmental justice and the environment. And I um and before the next suggestion, I'm uh I agree with converting the urban forest task force into a formal commission and would suggest that we potentially look at inviting them to a meeting of the uh or having a joint meeting between them and the commission on sustainability, environmental justice, and the environment. I do have some concerns with combining the disabilities, housing, and human services commission into one. So reading through the work plans, the disabilities commission work plan for 2025 to 2026 looks like it includes some really important work that would be really difficult to accomplish if it was part of a commission with a larger scope. So I would prefer to keep the disabilities commission as a standalone commission. Although I do hear the arguments for uh collapsing it into one. I think that people, as our some of our public commenters noted, people with disabilities are so frequently forgotten about and erased from public spaces and I don't want us to fall into that pattern and there are also a lot of people with invisible disabilities that I think they um help kind of [snorts] bring to the forefront. Additionally, the impact of the work of the disabilities commission affects more than just people with disabilities. The curbcut effect is the principle that features designed for people with disabilities often end up benefiting a

much wider range of people. And that illustrates how universal design and equity can create widespread advantages. So for those reasons, I would uh prefer to keep the disabilities commission as a standalone. There is some overlap with the housing commission and the human services. There may still be merit to keeping it as a standalone commission, but if my colleagues feel very strongly about combining the two, I would um request that we ask the human services commission to have a subcommittee dedicated to housing related issues. And regardless of whether housing remains a standalone commission or gets combined with human services, I would um ask that we look at possibly having a joint meeting of those commissions of disabilities, housing, and human services depending, you know, whether or not they're combined because I think there's a lot of overlap no matter what. Um on the landmarks commission since we have had some issues with recruiting a sufficient number of candidates I'm okay with removal of the residency requirements but it is helpful to have local expertise. I think that since we have the ability to select who we want to be on the commission it'll be helpful to have a broader range of candidates there. Um, I would also ask if it's within the scope of this item to ask the landmark direct the landmarks commission to do a holistic review of the work that they do on like bills act on um on the structure of merit and everything and come back with some recommendations for us with the public safety reform and oversight commission. I I agree with increasing the age limit from 22 to 25 and expanding the eligibility for living work living living or working um in Santa Monica. But for the youth seats, I would also ask that we include attending school in Santa Monica as a possible

eligibility criteria. So live, work, or go to school in Santa Monica for these seats. And I'm okay with reducing that to seven seats. For the arts commission, I'm okay with reducing the number of seats to seven as well. Um, for the general comments, I think that more youth representation would be incredibly helpful and it would help spur more youth interest in the work of the city, which is so important. And those are the folks who are going to be um enjoying the benefits of the decisions that we make and of the advice that the commissions give us on policy. I would be okay with having a standalone youth commission or potentially having a seat reserved for youth on commissions where appropriate. So things like human services, disabilities, arts, recreation and parks, um housing if it's not combined with human services commission, mobility and transportation if we have one, and libraries. Um but if there are others, open to hearing that as well. And I think those could either be voting members or exeicio. I think exophysicio would probably um be more more likely to be helpful for folks so that they don't feel that pressure. But happy to hear other ideas from folks. And in general, I think we should look for more opportunities for cross commission collaboration. So for example, there could be annual joint meetings between library and arts commissions or between arts and wreck and parks or sustainability and wreck and parks or disabilities and sustainability because there are a lot of overlaps in the different missions of these because they all come together to create one city. Um so wherever I think we can find those opportunities for cross collaboration or you know sharing of ideas across the commissions would be very helpful for us and for the commissioners. Um let's see here. So,

one of the examples that I had here was it could help us assess how city resources like our parks and recreational programs could be more accessible to people with disabilities or how we could do more work to incorporate the arts into our libraries or how we can leverage the work that the city has accomplished on sustainability like our sustainable water infrastructure project or city hall east into promoting tourism. So, maybe there's some opportunities there. I am okay with the removal of council liaison and I'm okay with removal of the boards and commissions attendance reports on an um or [clears throat] I'm okay with the reports on boards and commissions attendance on an annual basis instead of bannual and I'm okay with eliminating the annual boards and commissions dinner and including the reports as information items maybe not all at the same council meeting um and inviting a representative of the commissions to provide a brief verbal summary as a presentational item only without questions from the council. And if I missed any of the suggestions where you wanted feedback, I apologize, but I'll let somebody else speak. Thank you,

Council Member Hall.

Thank you. Um, first, uh, Maria, I just want to acknowledge your work, Nikki's work, uh, the whole clerk's team on on this as particular as one of the, uh, authors of the 16 item that requested this review. Um, thank you so much for your and all of staff's work on this. Um, I know it's been several months of work and thank you. Um, this is a sensitive subject, so I will I will begin by preemptively apologizing if I put my foot in my mouth in any way. Um, I really don't mean to. Um, I I just want to say that [clears throat] I really appreciate the comments made by two of our commissioners tonight from the disabilities commission. I think it's a really important perspective and I really appreciated hearing it. Um, I've also discussed the commission with other residents with disabilities, including former electeds in the city with disabilities who shared a very different opinion. um that keeping a separate commission in their view sidelined the advocacy work and and the point of view shared with me and and I guess what I've seen in my work in corporate DEI is that creating intersectional spaces and bodies um strengthens advocacy of traditionally marginalized groups by placing that advocacy exactly where it needs to be kind of at the at the center of how we deliver uh policies like housing stability, health access, and human services to our residents. Um I think and hope we learned something important when we consolidated the commission on the status of women and social services into the human services commission and that is that alignment matters. Um when our commissions mirror how our departments are structured, we get clearer work plans, stronger staff support and in my opinion far better follow-through from policy idea to like real world impact. Um, I fully believe that our disabilities

commission does really powerful work. I've seen your work plans. Um, but I I feel it does so in a structure that's siloed from the other commissions and department that implements many of the services that our residents with disabilities need and rely on about housing navigation, homelessness prevention, benefits access. Um and and I I think I've heard from even public comment tonight that our residents and those who are unhoused who uh live in our community aren't getting the follow through and and our our disconnect is is not serving residents as well as it could. So I I it would be my hope that bringing that disability advocacy into a consolidated commission that supports and provides oversight to the housing and human services division uh department is that we're actually like elevating that work. Um we're saying that disability equity is is not a side conversation. It's actually a core lens through which we deliver our services. Um and I would hope that we as a council um when we are appointing people particularly to that commission and to other commissions that we know um folks with lived experience provide really important perspectives to um that we you know consider that in our recruitment of people to uh apply for boards and commissions um and in who we are are voting on to appoint to them. Um, so I I I think I'll I'll leave leave my comments at that. I I I do support that change. Um, I hope it it proves if if we approve it that that that proves out and, you know, if it doesn't, I I guess we can reverse that change uh the next time we do this. Um I just on a couple of the other key uh

recommendations that are being made. Um I would like to keep the residency criteria for the landmarks commissioners. I do support the reduction of the urban forest task force to seven members to be commission consistent with other commissions. Um and I do want to convert it to a commission. Um, and I do support the reduction of voting commissioners to seven for the PSOC. Um, I don't know if I guess other folks want to uh make comments, but um I'm prepared to make a motion uh whenever whenever folks are done. Council member Raskin is next and then council member Stell.

Uh I'll echo the thanks for uh for your work and for I I know there's a whole team working with [clears throat] you. uh that made this happen. Uh really informative presentation and appreciate the work everyone going into this and shout out to Matthew Wells and the urban forestry team too. Uh great to see you here at council chambers. Um I um I'm think largely in agreement with council member skaya. Um but uh I I I appreciate the comments council member hall that you made about elevating the voices of individuals in our community. uh who come from marginalized backgrounds, people with uh disabilities. I I I do think that our our community is enriched by having it as a standalone commission. Um and I'm inclined to uh keep it as one. Um I do however agree that we should not remove the residency requirement for landmarks commission. Um I I don't think that we've ever had a a standing vacancy for that position uh from somebody because we couldn't find somebody in the community to fill it. I mean maybe there are some times in which the pool of applicants is small but we haven't had any trouble filling it. Um I uh just just to respond to one other thing that council member said about um the library board. I I would I would love to explore ways in which we can increase participation in that. I I understand that the library board is a little bit unique in the discovered both I think by the charter and state law about um the composition of library boards but um yeah if we can get more youth participation that's great. Uh I agree with the other recommendations. I'll just add two other things for the rest of the council's consideration that I hope we can find agreement on. Um first is with respect to an action that was taken by a prior council that I think was misguided. Uh a prior council added uh term limits to the vector control district and the metropolitan or the NWD. Um I think it's it's especially important that we remove the term limits

for the NWD because the influence that our representative has is largely governed by their seniority

in that board. Um so I I hope we can revisit that. Uh and the other one is uh and just for reference that's section 2E of the boards and commissions resolution but I hope we can also revisit section 1G which is the prohibition against uh family members serving on boards and commissions. Uh I know that several of us here on the dis have had family members who had to resign when folks were elected. Um you know I recall that that was brought forward in what felt largely as an attempt uh in what felt like an vendetta to be honest against a specific commissioner. Uh I think it was unfortunate. I think that having that limitation marginalizes the work of really capable individuals in our community uh who just happen to be family members of people who were elected officials. Obviously we should be careful to safeguard against nepotism. Uh and certainly I think that the council or I trust this council at least would not appoint people who are not qualified. U but there are people who are qualified who happen to be family members of people who are elected officials. So, uh, with those additional comments, I'll end it there. And, uh, again, thank you everyone for your work on this.

Thank you. Um, I just want to be brief. Also, I want to thank, um, the staff for the work on this. This is a lot of work. I, um, I also do agree uh, with my council members, and I I do believe that the disability committee should be uh, independent in some ways. because there's just so many things that I hadn't thought about until I heard from some of the comments today about the disability committee. So, I would like to possibly look at continuing that commission on a separate basis. Um, and then with respect to uh we heard tonight, I would also like when we bring this back to uh take a look at the airport commission and the makeup of the airport commission and see if there's things that we could do with uh with the airport commission because what's coming for us in the next three years uh that commission will be very vital to uh council to for suggestions and uh and I want to make sure that we have individuals on there that are can be objective and independent with respect to their discussion. But uh and then the last comment and uh um Ellis, you you made a very good comment with respect to uh um individual spouses being on uh various boards and commissions. My wife had to step down from the tourism board when I became council member. She wasn't too happy about that all at all. I just want everyone to know about that. But but I do think believe that uh um this particular council but in councils going forward when we select individuals we're looking at individuals with their expertise with independent independency with respect to their ability on the board in these commissions. And so I think that uh that particular clause uh really inhibits us uh not be to be able to get expert opinions with respect to those commissions. So I would definitely uh support that. But thanks again for all the staff on this [snorts]

and then I just if I could make a couple comments and then we'll entertain a motion. Uh first of all echo all the thanks. It sounds as though um delighted to hear that we're largely aligned on where this is going with a few key differences. So I'll look forward to hearing the motion. Um but I I do believe that strong boards and commissions are really essential to transparency, accountability, and public trust. And quite frankly, we need to hear more from them as council members. you know, folks are appointed to advise council. Uh, and I would just be completely candid, we are not hearing enough from our commissioners in terms of their recommendations and to the extent that we can come up with a better feedback loop than just an information item so that folks in the community are aware of uh what the work the real robust work of the boards and commissions are. Um, I think that that's important. Uh, and so let's just think about that on a going forward basis. And I also just want to be clear because there are many public comments about this as well. Tonight's action is procedural and exploratory. We are not voting to eliminate commissions or finalize any consolidations here tonight. We're having a study session. Uh and over time we have to acknowledge that we've added we've continued to add, right? We've added more important oversight bodies for good reasons, but growth without periodic review uh and realignment is uh you know problematic. And so that's what we're doing right now. We're seeing where the redundancies are, where the potential commissions that have a lot of vacancies are that we're having. I think you all know there are several commissions that we repeatedly have trouble recruiting for. Um, and we want to make sure that we're eliminating issu inefficiencies, especially in this, you know, austere budget environment. Um, because ultimately these inefficiencies weaken public participation. uh when you have when you're on a commission and you only get to meet once a year and you know your feedback is is really not taken into account, it's hard to keep those

commissioners engaged. So um just for staff, it's really important to us that we're not uh wasting your time quite frankly that this is something that uh is valuable, but then also for the the volunteers in the in the public that are volunteering their time. We want this to be value added for you and and also for us and for the public at large. So I'm particularly focused on in in the motion coming before us that there is that we are ensuring that lived experience and subject matter expertise like I asked in my questions is remaining central uh to the composition of each body. We want to make it easier not harder for residents to serve. Uh and we want to hold ourselves accountable um just like I mentioned about tracking what's what's happening uh what the progress is what the improvements are as a result of this uh streamlining. We want to make sure that these bodies are actually impacting policy and that people in the public can see and feel and hear from them. Uh and so this is just very much aligned with our broader commitment to realignment as a city, our our values around one one Samo. Uh and so I'm really delighted that that we've all come together here. I know you all have done a lot of work. uh and we want to make sure that we're uh setting up structures that meet our needs and our capacity and then our expectations and and I think that that's what we're going to do. But uh I'm happy to hear a motion. I would just say really briefly before we hear that motion uh it is my knowledge that there's a there is a settlement with the police officers association and that uh anything that we do u to the PSRC there there must be a meet and confer before that. So, I would just ask that uh out of out of an abundance of caution that we take any recommendations to the PSOC, excuse me, to the POA uh for their review and concurrence. And would that be amendable to the city attorney?

Yes. Great. Um and then I would also support removing the term limits for the Metropolitan Water District and the vector control district. I would agree that we um don't have an issue with filling the landmarks commission and I don't think there's a need to relax the residency requirement. Uh and I would support removing the prohibition against family members. So those are my comments and uh thank you all.

Okay. Um I move the staff recommendation except for the following specifics which I am either adding or taking away. Uh it sounds like folks want to keep the disabilities commission separate. So, uh, we'll keep the disabilities commission separate. Um, remove term limits for the vector control board and metropolitan water board appointees. Direct a meet and confer with the POA to implement the recommendation to reduce the number of voting commissioners on the PSROC to seven. Uh, for the consolidated commissions, um, commissioners will be required to reapply and be reappointed. Uh, under our normal policy, um, priority will not be given to existing members. Uh we will keep the residency criteria for the landmarks commissioners. We will reduce the urban forest task force to seven members uh and convert it to a commission. And we will formally eliminate the chair and vice chair dinner.

There a second. [clears throat] Great question. Does that also did you note the uh revisiting the disqualification of family members? I am not supportive of that. Okay. Okay.

So, I mean I'll I'll second I'll I'll second it. We can take a vote. Out of just a question for clarity. I I know we've done study sessions in different ways. Is this something that we we vote on in this manner? I mean, I've heard sometimes they say we're giving feedback. other times. I mean, is it useful that we Yeah, maybe we can clarify it in this clarify because there was an ordinance with the item. So, are we approving that or are we hearing feedback and coming back to council? No, tonight we're um taking direction from council. We'll assess all of the direction given if there is a motion and a vote to proceed a certain way, we'll prepare the proper documents, bring those back to implement the direction that's provided tonight. Okay. Does that answer your question?

Sure. Thank you. Great. Great. I seconded it. Uh, mayor, may I make a substitute motion? Of course, you may. Uh, I'll do the same motion, but add in uh removing the prohibition against family members. Okay. So, you want to keep the disability separate, remove term limits for MWD vector control, meet and confer with the POA. Um, anyone on a consolidated commission must reapply with no preferences. We will keep the residency requirements for landmarks. We will remove the family member prohibition. What did I miss anything? Council member Hall

the urban forest task force to seven members as it converts to a commission and we will formally eliminate the chair and vice chair dinner. And I'll second is urban forest is seven. Oh okay then keep it at seven arts. Did you say do you It was arts and the um public safety reform commission that we were reducing to seven. Got it. Thank you. Thanks. I'll second Council Member Raskin's motion. [snorts] Okay. And um and so sorry, going back to Council Member Hall's um motion, you want to include reducing arts to seven.

Yeah, I think that so I think that was part of the staff recommendation. So, yes. Okay. And then um for council member Rascin um it was all of the above except for um except that you wanted to add the nepotism just eliminate section 1G of the boards and commissions resolution which has to do with um eligibility criteria for family members. Okay. So, it's similar to council member Hall's um it it is council member Hall's motion with an additional directive. Okay. Yeah.

And the substitute motion was seconded by Snell. Uh council member Snell and any other any Well, we can't substitute a substitute. So, I guess we're voting on the substitute motion. Okay. So, the we'll vote on the substitute motion first. Council members Erneskaya. Yes. Council member Snell, yes. Mayor Promsswick, yes. Council member Rascin, yes. Council member Hall, no. Mayor um Oh, sorry. Um, Council Member Negrete is still absent. And, um, Mayor Troas, no.

Okay. No, but um, we have four votes and motion passes. Okay, that passes. Um, just before we we go to close session, we we did do agenda management, but we didn't have hear the city manager report, and I think there's some folks in the room that that would be helpful to hear from. And then I have a quick announcement uh before we go to close session. I do, too.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Appreciate the opportunity to uh provide some um an update on a couple of things as we have our very first meeting of 2026. Happy New Year to everyone in Santa Monica. I think the first thing we want to do um sitting in the audience tonight is our brand new director of housing and human services, Ailen Reynolds. Ailen, you want to stand up and take a bow? Yay. [applause] Welcome.

Ailen comes to us from the city of New York, um where she has extensive experience dealing with all things affordable housing, homeless response related. Um we're just fabulously excited she's made the decision to join our team here in Santa Monica. Um Ailen, congratulations. Can't wait to get you integrated in the team and to work with you here moving forward. Um also as we kick off 2026, um Mayor Therosis, you mentioned the realignment plan. There is so much work that the staff is engaged in doing. Um, one of the things that we wanted to share is there is some great capital improvement work happening right now throughout the city. Um, first along the fifth street freeway off-ramp off the 10. If you notice, there's a new landscaping project that's coming to fruition right now. Um, we're in the process of making all of our city gateways off the 10 freeway more welcoming. We're also now working on embankment and off-ramp litter removal through an agreement that we entered into with CALR where city teams are now working on removal of debris um and embankment litter um all throughout the 10 freeway corridor in Santa Monica. Also, if you take a look downtown, we have construction crews mobilized right at the start of the year. Um over 20,000 square ft of sidewalk replacement and repair is now underway. all part of the realignment plan improvements that we committed to executing when the council a couple months ago um authorized some um extensive changes operationally. A massive kudos to our public works team. Um I do see uh Mr. Dishlip in the audience. Um Rick and Chris have done a great job along with our entire team in public works really um helping to lead a lot of the um capital improvement efforts we're seeing throughout town. One more point that we wanted to share

with everyone. Um, everyone, if we're not out too late, even if we're out late tonight, we hope everyone will um, be engaged tomorrow because tomorrow morning, we will be swearing in Derek Jacobs as our next police chief um, officially. Massive [snorts] kudos to Chief Jacob. U, um, one of the finest leaders I've met. um someone that lives our values and has been working with our police department to address um a number of new initiatives. Um we just had a shift scramble happen this past weekend. Um there's a renewed um level of activity in our police department that I think everyone is feeling and seeing and that's really attributed to the work Chief Jacob has been engaged in. Um, one last exciting realignment um, plan update we wanted to share with everyone because it won't be in time. It'll happen in advance of our next council meeting. Um, all of our libraries are set to be reopen here in a week. Um, January 20th, 21st, we're going to be reopening Fairview and Ocean Park branch libraries. Terrific occasion. Massive kudos to Erica and the entire team in the library operation who over the um the winter break period spent time getting both facilities up and running. Um we hope everyone will join us for our reopening celebrations. The Fairview branch um celebration will happen on Tuesday, January 20th. Ocean Park will be reopening Wednesday, January 21st. Um those celebration events will take place starting at noon. And of course, last thing is uh no, um report would be complete without sharing our adoptable pet of the meeting. Um we are still working on bringing pets into the council chambers. Didn't happen for this meeting, but the pet we wanted to share with everyone is a beautiful

short-haired brown tabby named Shadow. Shadow's four years old. Loves affection. Enjoys spending time relaxing in bed with whoever is willing to cuddle. Loves to play with toys. Scratches posts. Um, also likes to just lay down and relax. So, if you're interested in bringing home an adorable tabby cat, please contact the animal shelter today. Um, with that, we will turn it back over to you, Madam.

Great. And I just wanted to before we go to close session, colleagues, I wanted to take a moment to update our community on a serious situation unfolding at the federal level that could affect families here in Santa Monica. Last week, the federal government attempted to restrict funding for three key anti-poverty programs. Uh these include TANIF through Cal Works, if you guys have heard of temporary assistance for needy families, uh the child care development fund, and the social services block grant that supports seniors and vulnerable residents. Uh, as you may have heard in the news, California and four other states filed suit to stop the freeze. And on Friday, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that will remain in place for the next two weeks. The state of California has already released January payments to Los Angeles County. So, benefits are continuing at the moment. And just wanted to let people know here in Santa Monica, there are about 500 residents that are enrolled in Cal Works that this may affect. This helps families pay for basics like housing, diapers, transportation, etc. Uh, and that we and we have nearly 6,300 residents that rely on CalFresh for grow groceries every month. Uh, and so I want to be clear for everyone watching at this point. No payments have been stopped. Benefits are still being issued. Uh, families should continue to use their cards and report uh, any charges uh, on on any of their cards. The concern is what may happen next. The court order is temporary and we simply do not know what the federal government will do when the two-week period expires. We saw earlier this year or excuse me last year when SNAP uh payments were suspended to our families. It was very very problematic and I just want to thank our housing and human services team uh who's really leapt into quick action to provide services to our families who are at the margins here. Um, even a short disruption could affect local families, child care access, nonprofit service providers who provide services to our families, uh, and the

stability of households that are already stretched. So, I just want to assure everyone that we are coordinating closely with LA County, who runs these benefit programs. We're assessing the risks, preparing contingency plans, and working with the state of California on next steps. And I, as your mayor, I do want our residents to know that we are monitoring this and in these discussions. Uh we know how important these benefits are to our working families, our seniors, our caregivers, our parents who are trying to stay employed and so many others. Um we are planning responsibly so that Santa Monicans are protected if funding becomes unstable. And we will share additional updates as these conditions change. Anyone that has questions can visit dpss.laccount.gov or call 866133777. Um, so thank you for for listening and it looks like council member Snell has an announcement.

Yes, my uh my comments have to do with close session item uh 5J after city council acted to adopt the HAP program on August 12th, 2025. I became aware that Cypress Equity Investments became a participant in the pilot program. I am chair and president and my spouse is CEO of a nonprofit for which we are our operation is located the property owned by Cypress Equity Investments because Cypress Equities is now a participant as the council considers the program this evening. I will recuse myself from the discussion.

Thank you. And with that uh clerk, can you read us into close session? Oh the time that we are council members has an announcement. Apologies. Um uh when it comes to close session um on items 5H, Ocean Avenue Housing Projects, 5H, Snack Suit, challenging SB 1123 and 5J, HPPP, significant exposure to litigation, uh consistent with my prior statements related to my employment with the housing action coalition as well as advice from the FPPC, I will be recusing myself from items 5H, 5, and 5J. Thanks. Thank you, madam clerk.

Um 5 A, close um five is close session. Uh 5 A is conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation um involving all [clears throat] of the John Doe's listed on the agenda. 5B is conference with legal council regarding existing litigation between the city and IC SOP. 5 C is conference with legal counsel existing litigation litigation between the city and Whimo LLC at all. 5D, conference with legal council, existing litigation uh between the city and Santa Monica EV Holdings LLC at all. Uh 5E, conference with legal council, existing litigation uh between the city and Whimo LC LLC. 5F conference with real estate negotiator regarding 930 Pacific Coast Highway one uh two uh 1,200 Pacific Coast Highway and 2400 Ocean Front Walk and 2600 Ocean Front Walk. city negotiators uh is um Jennifer Taylor, economic development manager, persons to be negotiated with Richard Shacker, president of Cha President for Chaos Enterprises um incorporated um DBA Perry's Cafe and Rentals at the Beach 5G conference with real estate negotiator regarding 2640 Main Street. Negot uh city negotiators are Jennifer Taylor. uh persons to be negotiated with Bruce Phillips, chief executive officer for Ocean Park Restaurant Corporation. 5H, conference with real estate negotiator regarding 419 and and 1616 Ocean Avenue. City negotiators Oliver Chi, city manager. Persons to be negotiated with Tara Beruskas, um executive director, community corps of Santa Monica. 5, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation. Uh Stanford Neighbors against city overreach versus the city. Uh 5J, conference with legal counsel,

significant exposure to litigation, one case. 5K, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation between the city and Courtney Brussov. This will be a report out. And last item, also a report out. 5L, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation between the city and Narin Sulahian Keshishian. And that was the last item. And uh city attorney, do we have an estimate of when we will be back? 1 hour and 45 minutes. So that would put us at 10:15 approximately. Okay. So, we will be back no earlier than 10:15. Thank you. [clears throat]

Okay. Um, we are back. Uh, apologies for the late hour. Uh, I will turn to our city attorney and ask if you have a readout of close session.

Yes. Um, all items were heard with um the following reportable actions and a a um so item 5K uh was a uh report out only. Um at its June 24, 2025 meeting, the city council approved the settlement in Bruce versus the city, a personal injury case involving a claim that Bruce was injured [snorts] when she was struck by a big blue bus in a crosswalk. The city admits liability but contests the nature of Bruce Hoff's damages. The parties agreed to settle for $5,999,999 and in exchange Bruce agreed to release all claims against the city. The settlement was approved by a vote of 70. Item 5L report out only. At its December 16th, 2025 meeting, the city council approved a settlement in Narin Suli Sullehan Keshi Keshik Keshian versus the city, a personal injury case involving a claim where the plaintiff fell as a result of a pothole resulting in injuries and requiring surgeries. The city denies liability and does not admit fault, but agreed to settle for $475,000. And in exchange, Sulleahan Keshi Kashian agreed to release all claims against the city and the settlement was approved by a vote of six in favor with uh council member Negrete opposed. In addition, um the mayor has a um statement on item 5H. Great. Item 5H, a conference with real estate negotiators related to properties at 419 and 1616 Ocean Avenue was heard by the city council with no reportable action taken. How? However, given the issues that have occurred at 413 Ocean Avenue during the past several months, the city council wanted to disclose details and contacts related to the proposed real estate deal. So, we waved privilege as was communicated to the city community corporation of Santa Monica has been considering selling their property at 419 Ocean Avenue to

Leo Pastelnikov and the matter was considered by the city in close session given that we were asked by CCSM and Mr. Pastlnikov to consider approving the deal. Given the history of the property at 419 Ocean Avenue, which was deed along with 1616 Ocean Avenue by the city to CCSM back in 2016, the proposed transaction between CCSM and Mr. Pistlnikoff can only be facilitated with the city's consent. The city discussed the potential real estate transaction in close session given that Mr. Pistlnikov is considering other interim/transitional housing uses at 413 Ocean, including a possible project with the office of diversion and re-entry for what has been described to the city as quote prisoner housing. CCSM has shared that they need the funds that they would acrue from selling 419 Ocean Avenue to help stabilize their operations. Also, Mr. Pistol Nikkov has indicated that if the city signed off on the transaction, he would forego any proposed interim/transitional housing use at 413 Ocean Avenue. We are aware that CCSM is also considering selling other properties they own to Mr. Pilnikov. We have been made aware that CCSM and Mr. Pilnikov are still negotiating potential deal terms for a possible transaction. And that is all. Thank you. We will now move on um given the agenda management that we did. Uh

sorry, mayor. I just have a motion for agenda management. Sure. I'd like to move that we hear public comment for 11 C and 16A first and then we hear public comment for 10A with the item later so Council Member Snell can recuse and be dismissed for the night. Okay, I'll second that. Great. Um, and by the way, is Council Member Negrete with us? Um, not yet.

Oh, did did someone Oh, Hold on. Now she's calling me. Hello. Can you talk to her or she Hold on. We're requesting you into the meeting right now. I'm so sorry. Can are we good? She's in. Um, yes. Okay. Um, Council Member Negrete, can you hear us?

On the phone while we continue doing this? Yes, I can hear you. [clears throat] Uh, great. So, we just had Would someone like to restate the motion just so that Council Member Degrete can hear it? Yeah. Yeah, the motion is uh to hear public comment for 11 C and 16A together at the beginning of the items and then uh hear public comment on 10A with the item so council member Snell can recuse and be dismissed for the night and I'll second. Great. So, can we take a roll call vote? Council member Negrete? Yes. Council member Hall? Yes.

Council member Raskin? Yes. Mayor Promwick, he's absent. Absent. I mean, I I think he's, as was announced, he's recused from the remainder of the items. Okay. So, um, council me um, Mayor Promzwick is absent. Council member Snell, you. Council members Ernay, yes. And Mayor Trosus, yes. Motion passes.

Thanks. Okay. So, what we will do is we are first hearing um public comment on 11C and the 16 items. Uh, and if you are not in the queue for that, you can just uh not come up when your name is called. I'm so sorry for the confusion. Uh, so we have Denise Barton, Karen Croner, Andrew Hoyer, Brian O'Neal, and Clara Senica. If you could line up and and start providing your comments. And just yeah, apologies. We we do have 40 um 44 comments, so everyone will get one minute. Good evening. On item 11 C, may I first encourage everyone to look at the January 9th, 2026 Santa Monica Daily Press article titled, "City Hall scrambles the fixed housing votes as new questions emerge over city council member conflicts." for more information because the reason we are here is because of all the allegations including Jesse's Wick has and his conflict with his housing action coalition employment as well as exparte communication. Caroline Terosas has an undisclosed professional conflict through her employment as a senior policy director for Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell and Natalyia Zerinska violated the Lavine Act regarding a campaign contribution in vote. And it would appear that there are several other locations that needed to be added to this item, and I hope those will be added. I also wonder if Caroline Terrosa's conflict of due to employment is found to be valid. Will that infect any other of her votes since she started?

Karen Croner, Andrew Hoyer, Brian O'Neal, Clarisonica.

Good evening. My name is Andrew Hoyer. I'm the president of Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors. Uh, back in October, council members Swick read a 500word essay before making a substitute motion to end the exclusive negotiating agreement for the civic center revitalization plan. It was seconded by Mayor Proemos after she read a 200word essay. Then, council member Hall suggested a friendly amendment to explore the value of the site if it was an unencumbered. We all know the greatest value would be to sell the property to a housing developer and therefore council member Zwix's now acknowledged conflict of interest should have made the entire substitute motion null and void. So I'm wondering why this vote is not also being included in tonight's revote. Thank you,

Mr. O'Neal.

Yes, good evening. Brian O'Neal, uh, Pico Neighborhood Association. Thank you all for your service. These meetings are really feats of stamina. Um, I'm here to advocate two things that I hope you keep in mind as you deliberate these housing ordinances. Guard rails uh for the residents, number one, and um, fairness and equity for the Pico neighborhood in general. Guard rails. What do I mean? Let's not go beyond the state laws, specifically SB123. Let's cap it, you know, two stories, not three. Have some reasonable setbacks. Uh, two two lots in my neighborhood are already undergoing what we think are SB123 developments, and it's quite frightening to be honest. Um SB23 also has an affirmative uh fair housing element to it that all these projects shouldn't be dumped in the Pico neighborhood here in Santa Monica, right? Which has the the least expensive R1 law

and it seems like that's what's happening. So guard rails and uh fairness and equity. Thank you, Mr. O'Neal. Um, we have Clara Senica, Jakamo Valentini, Ashley Olsen, Alan Mont, and Stephanie. Are all of them not here? Am I on the right list? Yes. Oh, okay. Sorry.

I'll just call some more names. Um, Christine Par, Nikki Kolhoff, John Cyrus Smith, Heather Thomasson are the next ones coming up here. you. Yeah, you ladies can go ahead and then when I'm done, will you play the video?

Good evening. Um, I know you guys are in a really difficult predicament right now with the Jesse's Wick uh conflict, but on September 9th, Jesse's Wick appeared before the Los Angeles Planning Commission lobbying for building code changes that are nearly identical to the changes he was preparing to vote for before the Santa Monica City Council later that night. I want to be clear, he did not disclose that he was lobbying on the exact same day he would be voting on these exact provisions in Santa Monica. and he ensured that some provisions he promoted in Los Angeles were written and worded almost identically into Santa Monica before they were brought forward for a vote. Santa Monica's fire trucks cannot reach beyond three stories. To meet increased requirements and maintain life scene standards, the city would need to purchase $1.3 million for a new truck. [snorts] Yet, the concern raised by Zwick was not the cost of the city, but the reduced developer profits. Thank you.

Just play the video, please.

Uh my name is Jesse Zwick. I'm the Southern California Director for the Housing Action Coalition, a statewide membership organization that works to end California's persistent [clears throat] housing crisis. Um, we're just here to applaud the courage and leadership of this body in advancing this important and common sense reform to LA's building code that has the potential to unlock cheaper, larger, more livable, and sustainable apartment living in Los Angeles. But I do want to emphasize the word potential for a reason. Um, while the motion that you wrote and approved called for an ordinance that mirrors that of the city of Seattle, where single stair buildings have been allowed without major incidents since 1977, the one before you contains several additional provisions that threaten to render this incredibly good idea dead on arrival. This includes a prohibition on mixed occupancies, a prohibition of more than one building per lot, and the window issue, as mentioned previously, that would mandate 8 foot side setbacks that would make these projects impossible to build in the real world,

Mr. Mont, I guess. Uh, continue playing, please. I did come from a meeting today in Los Angeles where the land use and landing sorry planning and land use committee did just approve what would be a code change in the LA code. So I'm trying to understand how you're saying that's not possible when they're doing it. Um and I appreciate that you guys are trying to find the pathway that you think will be uh the most effective in getting us to where we're hoping to go. Um, some of my colleagues already asked about um, the 4,000 ft limit being for habitable floor area and it seemed you think I heard you say that that could be doable in terms of how we define it. Yeah.

And then uh, I think I heard my other colleague mention uh, the idea of an exterior staircase. My only additional followup on that is that our language currently, at least in the bulletin, says the stairway enclosure shall be pressurized. And I just I noticed that the language in LA said an exterior stairway or interior exit stairway shall be provided. The interior stairway shall be smokeproof. And I'm just wondering if we can just make sure with the language that we're making it clear that the stairway can be either. Absolutely.

The question of emergency escape and rescue openings. Um uh in LA they're running into an issue to play it for another minute. where there escape or rescue opening or window. Uh but if that's triggering an 8 foot side step setback on either side of the building, that's making it impossible to build. And I'm just our ground ladders can only reach the the third balcony, third level balcony. Got it. Um but it's just easier to say all emergency escape windows. And it's one more thing that in discussions at the state group is not a big hindrance to add those windows. It's a little different dimension. Um, and and it just provides another access for the tenants.

That's great. I was just making sure there wasn't some series of unintended consequences that weren't enumerated. Um, in order to operate and actually access those windows though, yes, we need some sideyard space to be able to to Right. But in this case, there's no 8ft sideyard setback. No. Okay.

Okay. Uh, I Okay, time. So, we have I'm just trying to figure out who's commented now. Nikki Kolhoff, John Cyrus Smith, Headler Thomasson, and Alex Ward. Staff item 11 C will quote, remove doubt with respect to the prior actions, end quote, by rubber stamping them. How is that possible? The FPPC determined Zwick had a disqualifying conflict on housing production items. Yet, upon learning one of council's most fervent housing advocates who fundamentally altered this city's course has a disqualifying conflict, staff's instinct is to quickly ratify these tainted matters as if they never existed. Santa Monica residents deserve a doover. Staff claims they reviewed all votes and identified only a handful of items to confirm. I've provided you a complete list of all of Zwick's items, and the city attorney needs to review each one of them and bring them back as appropriate. Do the right thing. resin these items and direct staff to review all tainted items. Do not double down on this conflict. With respect to 1123, you need to resend the emergency and do not send it back to the planning commission. Uh, by the way, this came from another conflict of Zwix where he drafted the ordinance with a developer represented by

HA. Thank you. Hey folks, John Cyrus Smith, uh, Recreation Parks Commissioner. I just, um, I want to tell you a little story. Back in 2012, I was, uh, working at KMBBC as a producer, making a six-f figureure job, won a couple Emmys, and I decided to do something else, and I decided to run for city council. I didn't even ask my boss if I could work in that job. and try to sit up there with you guys. It was a blatant conflict of interest. I couldn't do one thing and the other thing at the same time. Um, unfortunately, I think that Jesse's Wick has uh come into that same problem and I think he needs to decide what he wants to do. Does he want to keep the six fig job or does he want to keep on sitting up there with you guys? That's what I think. And um I think that he's probably thinking about that right now as he's recusing himself going forward. It just doesn't work.

Thank you, Heather.

I Yeah, I have a um an image. Thank you. Um Heather Thomasson. Hi guys. Um, the 1123 local ordinance has been defined by one thing, jamming it through as fast as possible. Private lobbying from a developer to council member Zwick, outside public view created this whole thing. It was rushed through as an emergency ordinance to bypass the planning commission, any study, and public engagement. Except there was no emergency. A lawsuit forced a normal process. But even that wasn't normal. The direction to planning commission wasn't tell us how you think we should implement the law. It was three stories, 1.5 far. Approve this. Staff didn't even bring drawings for something that will fundamentally change these neighborhoods. That's how little genuine review there was. You can see why claims about tonight being just initiating a planning commission process ring hollow and why many of us here worry are worried about any version of this going forward. This ordinance is tainted and unnecessary. SP 1123 just went into effect to allow lots splits in starter homes. [clears throat] Why go beyond state law with no evidence? Alex Ward, Kathy Knight, Harvey Edder, Chris Condo.

Good evening. My name is Alex Ward. I'm an architect. I live in Sunset Park. Speaking to the emergency ordinance, uh I believe it's 2821 that was passed um and the discussion tonight about sending it back to planning. Um, we I think everyone in this room probably agrees we need more homes in Santa Monica, but we don't need larger homes. And the states uh SB 684 and 1123 already are increasing the number of houses that can be built on one lot from 1 to 5. the city's proposed ordinance and the emergency ordinance um goes well beyond that uh and I think produces an overwhelming scale of new development in our single family zoned neighborhoods. I would encourage city council planning to revisit and clarify the role of ADUs and JADUs in helping create new housing but not allow for a larger building envelope as part of this effort. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Kathy Knight, Harvey Eder, Chris Condo, Tracy H. Are you Chris? Yeah, go ahead. I I don't see anyone else.

Um thank you. My information and belief is that this ordinance is of a lot of importance to some people on the council. Axiomatically, then it's of a lot of importance to to the residents here, and I think they deserve to be heard. They're not going to be deser. They're not going to be heard on an emergency basis. I think everyone should approach this with good faith. Take it as a minute to to have a reset. Things that need to be considered. I originally asked for three minutes, but I've only got seconds left. Are things like where will this where will this ordinance have an impact? My real estate friends tell me that the the best return on investment for real estate for a developer is to buy a less expensive lot because you can still get the density bonus without having to pull out all the money that you would if you were to buy a house in Nommo. So what you're going to have, it seems to me, is you're going to disperately affect have a disperate racial and economic impact on on on a disperate impact on on on a neighborhood that that was impacted once before by the freeway. Now you're going to go

create a situation where the housing changes completely without your input. Sorry, I had a rush. That's okay. Thank you. Tracy Hom, Dave Rand, Nico, Avana, Mitchdorf. Gemifer Pull. Oh, okay. That was the last one. Call. Okay. Yeah, that Well, come on up if you hear your name and just approach the mic.

Thank you. Mitch Dorf. I live at 32nd Street near Ocean Park. I encourage you to oppose the proposed zoning ordinance and believe your elected responsibility is to protect, preserve the sanctity, security, and safety of our existing neighbors. Since I have a little time, earlier tonight, there was a vicious anti-semitic attack made by a speaker in this room, and you did nothing but threaten to close and remove everybody. It is your obligation to call out hate speech, and it has no part in our community. Outside these doors is this, and it says Santa Monica versus 8. If you or someone you know has been a victim of hate, report it, receive support. I'm reporting it and I'm asking for your support to take action to apologize for your non-statement and make a statement. The cameras are on. The reporters are here. It's your opportunity now to make amends. Please, Ellis, Natalia first. I mean, does our city attorney want to talk about how we're allowed to restrict for we of course condemn

you didn't at the time? I I we absolutely condemn any anti-semitic comments, but I think our city attorney might want to talk about what is and is not allowed, right? So, you mean in in terms of decorum? Yeah. Right. So, there there are rules um surrounding decorum, but it is also there are also balanced against, you know, first amendment rights. So it is a very difficult balance during these public um during these public meetings and um oftentimes unfortunate um but that is that is the balance and that is where the case law and the courts have ruled. What does this sign mean?

If I may can make a point on personal privilege. Um I'm Jewish. I think you know that um I've been attacked had rocks thrown at me punched in the face because I'm Jewish. I know that Council Member Natalyia fled the country of her birth because of anti-semitism. We take this seriously, but we also take seriously the right of people to speak freely in this public forum. And generally, it's not appropriate for us to respond to public comments as deplorable as they may be. Okay. Uh with that being said, thank you. Appreciate Should I hang this back up then? You may do what you wish. We're taking public comment at this point. Uh Jennifer Pamus, Harlo Sharp, Jeff Blogett, Lauren Block,

Jennifer Pimus, Santa Monica resident and business owner. I don't know any of you yet. So I read the candidate questionnaires from when you ran for office to be on the city council. And the questionnaires are long. They're very detailed. And they included important questions about development and affordable housing, among other things. The responses all stressed the importance of protecting rent control and that we needed to build more affordable housing. What I read is that none of you advocated for going beyond state law and that none of you advocated for the intense densification of residential neighborhoods. Council member Hall did advocate for what he called gently densifying the city in his interview with the video interview with the Santa Monica Democratic Club, but he said it was for downtown and on our commercial boulevards. So I don't believe you have a mandate by the voters to go beyond state law.

Thank you so much. Harlo Sharp, Jeff Blogett, Lauren Block, did I call your name and have you not come? I was in the first group before I Oh, I'm sorry, Ivana. Yes. Thank you.

Can I start? Okay. I would like to begin by saying I do not oppose new housing. I'm an architect by education. I've lived in Santa Monica for 26 years, have a business in Ocean Park Boulevard for 16 years, and both of my children went to our public schools. From that perspective, I'm deeply concerned. Density in itself is not the problem, but rapid and poorly planned density is. Density works only when supported by infrastructure. What I see in instead is density without any visible plan for how our streets, schools, open spaces, utilities, water or energy systems are supposed to handle it. In Sunset Park alone, roughly thousand new units are planned, meaning up to up to 2,000 more people and cars in one small neighborhood. And this is only the beginning. Santa Monica is an ecosystem and right now that ecosystem is out of balance. If you fail to plan responsibly, you risk making the city unlivable, changing it in ways that neither you nor future generations can undo. As the writing on the wall behind

Thank you. Wouldn't mind [clears throat] stating your name when you come up? That'd be great.

Good evening. I'm Harlo Sharp and I'm a close to 40year homeowner in Sunset Park. Uh the state housing laws are still relatively new. The city has no idea what the cumulative impacts are going to be from the existing laws and from the density increases that are already required. I would not be environmental I would not be environmentally or fiscally responsible for the city to be on the state law under these circumstances. It makes no sense to send a bad idea to the planning commission or they can study that bad. so they can stud.

Thank you, Jeff Bloget. Lauren Block. Good evening, Jeff Blahit. Oh, sorry.

Um, it's all right. Uh, we are uh we are for more affordable and affordable price market uh rate housing in our in our city. I believe an increased supply will lower housing housing prices and rents and help make Santa Monica more accessible to a broader and more diverse demographic. Change can be good when it's thoughtful, conceived, and executed. The changes affecting our local housing policy implemented at the state level are already fast-paced, and their impacts on the infrastructure have been insufficiently uh evaluated to justify exceeding state requirements in any way at this time. The city's prior decision to instruct the planning commission to develop an ordinance adding ADUs and JADUs, increasing the R1 height limit to three stories and reducing our SEPAC requirements will increase the likelihood that Spec developers can build at least 10 dwelling units on what is now a single family lot. This will greatly add to parking demand and traffic congestions on our neighborhood.

Thank you. sharing time. So, uh, Mayor Terrosus and members of the council, I'm Lauren Black. The city's land use and circulation element, uh, prioritizes the importance of allowing for dynamic change while at the same time respecting our existing neighborhoods. The ordinance you're asking the planning commission to consider for our R1 neighborhoods unnecessarily accelerates the changes currently required under state law without having truly considered the impacts of those changes and the capacity of our infrastructure to support them. The loose advises that we should at times apply the brakes in order to thoughtfully and carefully promote healthy change for our community. We urge you to refrain from further action until city staff genuinely considers and reports on the ina impacts of SP 1123 AB 1287 and the suite of recently enacted state housing laws on our city's grid. In dialogue with our neighborhoods, we urge the city to identify new create stress on Thank you so much. Uh, okay. So, we have Pingho, John Prindle, Eli Gil, Christina Nan, Mark Nan, uh, Pingho. Um, one of the greatest assets of this city is its remarkable brain trust of talent and expertise represented in part by those seated here in the audience tonight. I believe that if the council collaborates with the community in problem solving on these housing issues, it can achieve progressive policies while preserving

quality of life and attaining fiscal balance. Conversely, I have personally observed that what starts inharmoniously ends inharmoniously. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, yes, John Prindle, Eli Gil, Christina Nan, Mark Nven.

Hi, Eli Gil, Wilmont resident. I'm here to thank the council members who are stepping up and saying yes to housing and yes to a better future for Santa Monica. These council members were elected by the people of Santa Monica in no small part because they were clear about supporting housing for families. Voters understand that if we want a city that works for the next generation, we have to make room for them. I've heard a lot of people who've been here for 30 and 40 years. They bought their houses a long time ago. In the 70s, you could buy a house for three times the income, the average income in Santa Monica. Today, that's 16 times. That's a problem. That's a policy failure. We haven't built enough housing to deal with the growth of California. There aren't options for young people like me with a family to live here. So, people leave. My friends leave every day. I'm here advocating for those people who want to stay here, build families, have a vibrant city with businesses and restaurants and places and parks and amenities, and you need people to pay for those things. Thank you for doing this work.

Thank you. Um, John Prindle, Christina Nivven, Mark Nan. Um, I'll just There was Tracy H, Dave Rand, Nico, Harvey Eder, Kathy Knight, Jakamo, Clara Senica, Karen Croner. I'm just calling names that have not yet come up. Um, Paula Mour, Ron Mickelson, Michael Dandel, please approach the mic if you hear your name. That would be great. Doesn't necessarily need to be in order. Just state your [snorts] name when you come up. Yes, first

Mike Dandel. I'm here as a resident of Sanset Park, a homeowner, and as your constituent, I'm here to remind council that any zoning changes, especially in the area zoned R1, that are uh that there are consequences that can be significant and dramatic. Council members and planning commissioners have made a decision to allow and encourage mid-rise apartments along major arterials like Washington, sorry, like Wilshire, Santa Monica Boulevard, Lincoln Boulevard, and others in the city. I'm sure during that process all concerned studied all of the potential uh benefits and consequences for such a significant zone zoning change. And I'm sure that during that time there was no consideration that the state would pass laws that would dramatically increase density and scope of city zoning laws. I'm here to encourage you all to vote no on this measure 11 C in order to allow more time to consider all options benefits and consequences of such a significant change to R1 zoning. Three stories one and a half F are both unreasonable and creates mcmansions. Changing setbacks doesn't make sense with associated with the fire impact.

Thank you.

Hi there. Thank you for everything that you all do. My name is Paula Maer. I've been in Santa Monica for 30 years. I'm asking please do not send 11C to the planning commission. Why has there not been more research and conversation about this? What kind of housing are we building? Is this really affordable? Is this really creating more affordable housing, which is what we need? I don't understand why our city is going farther than what the state has put forth. I know that myself and a lot of people in this room do not feel heard even though we appreciate everything you're doing.

Thank you, Richard Milani. John Reynolds, Jennifer Krimble, Lisa Blajett.

Good evening. So nice to have all these people here. This is absolutely fantastic. You can hear me. Only a minute. That's I'll have to cut this down. Anyway, I've lived in Santa Monica for 40 years or more. I love the city and my kids grew up here, etc. I know some of you I've met with you. What's most concerning is how rushed this process has been. Major zoning changes should involve careful study and real community input, not be fast-tracked under the guise of an emergency. Mr. Zwick has been compromised and exposed because of his selective transparency, and Mr. Wick and the city attorney have not been forthcoming nor completely transparent. You, as a council, need to take the SB123 statute as is. Put all your cards on the table and most importantly include the residents in any discussion or proposed changes. Okay. What are you afraid of anyway? What are you afraid of? Put your cards on the table. Why do you have to change the state statute? It's ridiculous. Who the hell do you think you are? And I love you guys what you do. So think about it. Start from scratch 1123 right from scratch. That's what you need to do. to take all this nonsense out. We're all angry about this and I'm angry. I'm not angry with you. [laughter]

Okay. Start from scratch on 1123. That's what you need to do. I trust you. Yeah, we appreciate you. Thanks for your passion. I'm sorry. I didn't get the um his name. Was that Richard Bolognese? No. Yeah. Right. Oh, we remember. [snorts] Fired up. Uh, John Reynolds. That's right. I am John Reynolds. Thank you very much.

I'm going to pick up right where he left off. I think you should scrap it. It's This well has been poisoned. Jesse's involvement and his conflict of interest. And I think he's bamboozled some of you guys. If you took votes today, knowing what you know and things, it might be different. Cicero said, "The voice of one who speaks persuasively can turn the course of many." And I think his enthusiasm for development, and I call it overdevelopment, uh, has really kind of bamboozled some of you. And I think if we could slow down, I agree with Ping that you have a an intelligent citizenry that's very engaged and they really care a lot about where we live. So, if we could be involved a little more, I think we'd have a better outcome and you wouldn't have to do this behind closed doors and make it look so secretive. Everyone would feel better. He wouldn't be as mad at you and I wouldn't either. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Um, I'm just going to call a few more names here. Jennifer Krimble, Lisa Blog, Blogget, Laura Houston, Brian Lane. Are people just deciding they don't want to talk or they all left? Well, you have 10 coming. That's true. Okay. Fair, fair, fair, fair. Uh, Joseph Cohen, May Brad Ewing.

Hello, my name is Joseph Cohen May. I'm a downtown Santa Monica resident. Um so the email that shown before uh with that developer first of all the standards mentioned in that email aren't the standards that are being proposed for the ordinance and also I know that's not where the idea for the standards came from because I was the one who um suggested the standards uh and many of the stands that were proposed um they came out of a research project that I did about a year ago um working with Abundant Housing LA for cities in the LA area how to make uh missing middle housing feasible under various things including 1123 and I had some suggestions and um Jesse was in attendance uh time when I gave that presentation and a lot of the um proposed standards were from that. Um I'm happy to talk to you guys or the plan commissioner whatever to explain the reasoning um behind uh any of the standards were opposed and why I think they're important for allowing um families Thank you. Um, Miss Clerk, Madame Clerk, you're in the queue

and and I'm not anymore. Oh, okay. Great. Uh, Mr. Euing,

good evening, council. It's late. I'll try to be quick. My name is Brad Yuing. I'm the co-chair of Santa Monica Ford speaking on 11C. I urge you to reaffirm these votes to build much needed housing in our community. These reforms, especially the ones facilitating small lot housing alternatives, such as town homes, condos, or small plexes, enable missing middle housing types that are inherently more affordable than single family homes. The single family neighborhoods are objectively the least affordable in the city, often with medium prices to buy exceeding $2 million. Moreover, these reforms provide an economic viable alternative to the McMansionization that's already underway. Gentle density is how the middle class outbids the rich for expensive urban land. Look, my family is probably never going to be able to afford a single family home in this city, but we can aspire to a count to a condo or a town home. So, thank you for your time and happy new year.

Thank you. Okay, so I believe that concludes Go. We have one uh caller on the phone, um Jacob Wasserman for a minute. Great. I was signed up. Oh, speak earlier. Oh. Oh, right. Because you want to talk about 11 C. Okay, great. Maybe Miss Lopez should go first and then we'll take Mr. Wasserman or is Mr. Wasserman ready? We can hear Miss Lopez first. Sorry. That's okay. Please hold Mr. Waserman. Thank you. Um so good evening.

Um so I'm very fortunate tonight to basically be here with my block. Um, and there are a lot of residents here who, as others have said, are angry, and we are respectfully asking the city council not to ratify the decisions made before council members Wick's conflict of interest was uh, exposed. The issue extends well beyond any single council member. This evening, Mayor Terrosus, you yourself asked questions about the conflict issue directed to city attorney. That's the same office that failed to identify or prevent the conflict of interest in the first place. That failure is not incidental. A vote to ratify a mistake does not cure the mistake. And post hawk scripted questioning doesn't restore public confidence. We are angry. We are upset. We feel lied to. We feel cheated. We feel unheard. This is not okay. When the city attorney advises council on conflicts and gets it wrong, the public is left without meaningful safeguard. and that needs to be re

Thank you. Okay, so we will now hear from Mr. Wasserman. Oh, sorry. Was that Council Member Negrete? No, sorry. I did that by accident. Oh, okay. Okay. Um, Mr. Wasserman.

Thanks so much. Um, Jacob Wasserman, Wilmont resident, planning commissioner. I'm going to speak on the substance when it if and when it gets to the planning commission, but I'm speaking in a personal capacity about the incredible disenfranchisement that I and the majority of Santa Monicans who voted for Mr. Zwick are feeling right now. There is no conflict of interest. If you worked for the LA Regional Food Bank, there's a nexus to poverty alleviation, but that has nothing to do with conflicts of interest. And the letter confirmed he has no financial conflict of interest. and they keep calling it an FPCC letter. It's not. It's a single staff person. Now, Mr. Zwick is actually so consiliatory that he's not going to continue fighting it. But I actually urge you as a city council to appeal on his behalf because we have a crisis of democracy right now. Our investigatory agencies are being used against legitimate elected officials. I'm in the majority here who voted for him and I want him to have a vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Wasserman. I believe we will now move to the staff report for 11C.

Thank you, Madame Mayor, members of the council. Um the interim city attorney and I will be presenting an overview of the items to be considered um as part of item 11C, consideration of certain prior housing production related votes. If we can go to the first slide. Um Oh, thank you, Maria. Um the um discussion that we wanted to start with really is the background on what um and why the issues are coming back before the council for consideration tonight. Heard a lot of comment from the public. We've received a lot of um written um correspondence related to the issues at hand. We wanted to provide a full outline and overview of um all of the issues that led to this. Um I I've heard it described as um a reratification of prior votes. This is a revote on all of these items, say for one, to determine if the council wants to continue moving things forward as was prior previously directed or if you'd like to take separate action on the items that we've identified as requiring um consideration based on what the FPPC guidance letter said. There's been a lot of um comments about Mayor Promzwick. Um what I think that the staff level we want to articulate is the facts as we've seen them and at every turn what we saw from Mayor Prom Zwick was that he wanted to seek advice. Um the prior city attorney provided some advice related to the potential conflicts related to his engagement with the housing action um coalition or hack and his employment there, how it might interface with his

[snorts]

um role as a council member. And at every turn when new information came to light, Mayor Promwick approached staff and from my perspective continued to try to do the right thing um based on the guidelines and state law. So, as of October 28th, 2025, Mayor Pro Timwick announced he would no longer be participating in any housing production related matter. Um, he also asked that the city proactively and preemptively submit to the FPPC a full outline of everything related to his engagement with hack. Um, all of the details that we have, Mayor Pro Timwick voluntarily provided. There was no cover up by the mayor prom. He gave us the information, the dates that he interviewed, um the dates that he was considering applying for the job, when he was offered the job, all of his um letters and correspondence with hack, those that information he provided willingly. We think that's important that the record reflect that. We prepared all of that information, our interim city attorney did, and compiled it into a letter, a 16-page letter that we submitted to the FPPC on November 10th. If we can go to the next slide, the fact that um Mayor Promwick um was willing to provide that information was consistent with his actions throughout the issues that have been raised by the community and by Mayor Promwick related to his engagement with hack. um back in June. This is a complete timeline of what we're aware of as it relates to Mayor Promwick engaging in a potential application with the housing action coalition. Um that first um indication we had that this could happen was in June of 2025 before he applied to work with Hack. Uh, Mayor Promwick did consult with our prior city attorney and with the city attorney's

office um on what those implications could be based on the conversations that happened. He did apply for the position in July. He was offered the position on August 15th, 2025. Throughout August, as these do conversations were happening, Mayor Proimzic consulted with the city attorney's office and with Hack in an attempt to create safeguards that they felt would be reasonable in order to address any potential conflict issues. Ultimately, the position that Mayor Prumik accepted that happened on August 18th and he began employment on September 8th. What's important to note though is in October the interim city attorney and staff, we met with Mayor Protom Wick at his request based on additional feedback that we'd been getting related to the issue. Our interim city attorney conducted additional review. Based on those conversations, um, Mayor Promwick then suggested and asked that we submit everything to the FPPC to receive their guidance. Um ultimately the FPP's response to the city was provided on December 8th. They concluded that Mayor Promzick did not have a financial conflict of interest, but rather according to their nexus test that's enscconced in the California state government code, Mayor Proton Wick should recuse himself um prospectively from participating in any item the city council considers related to housing production. We do think it's important to note the FPPC did not make any finding of past violations. They didn't determine that any vote was unlawful. They also did not find any um concealment or bad faith that this was really someone trying to operate in good faith and we were trying to figure out what the actual rule is given the nuance related to the position that Mayor Protowick had taken. The other thing

that's important to note based on the nexus test used by the FPPPC, the conflict that was cited via the nexus test only applied starting from the time when Mayor Promwick began employment with hack. And again, he started officially um he was offered the position officially on August 15, 2025. If we can go to the next slide. Um there's been a lot of talk about the FPPPC advice that um was provided in response to the letter we sent. If we can go to the next slide, um specifically what was in the request letter that we did send, what did the FPPC respond with? There were four letter four letters, four questions that the city asked specifically in our letter to the FPPC. The first was whether or not council members Wick would have a conflict that would require him to resign his position as a council member if he were employed with hack. The FPPC said no, he did not have to resign his position given his employment. We also asked if he would have a conflict that would require him to recuse himself from upcoming votes related to the affordable housing production program, SP9, SB450, and SP1 1123 that we've heard a lot of comments about tonight, the airport conversion project, and surface parking lot upzzoning. in those areas prospectively. The FPPPC said yes, the council member would have a conflict pursuant to the nexus test that would require his recusal. Um, given that we currently have existing litigation occurring with SP1 1123 and the emergency interim zoning ordinance that we applied, we also asked the FPPPC if the um potential if Mayor Promwick's position would preclude the city from entering into a settlement

agreement um because of his employment status, the FPPC said no, that pending litigation issue was not in at risk um from settling because of Mayor Promwick's position. The last question we asked is whether or not Mayor Promswick would have a conflict that would require him to recuse from decisions related to housing production or from all housing decisions. The FPPC said that would have to be determined on a case-byase basis. That's the totality of the questions and the responses that we got from the FPPC. If we go to the next slide, once the FPPC advice letter was received, we did meet with the city council. Um, this city council identified unanimously, fix the issue, whatever prior actions were taken that need to be rectified, bring those back for the city council to revote and identify whether or not the same determination on policy would be the standing policy on a prospective move forward basis. And so what we've brought back tonight for your review are a list of items that after consulting consultation with outside legal counsel we've identified that relate to any proactively considered prior policy approval and approved policy not direction but approved policy that fits two criteria. The first criteria is that mayor promswick participated in that dis in that vote related to housing production. The second is that the timing of those votes happened between August 12th to October 28th. The reason that date range was selected if you recall mayor promick was offered the position with hack on August 15th. We had a council meeting 3 days earlier. So we felt it was appropriate and proper to pull in any consideration from the August 12th meeting. You recall mayor

protomswick recused on all housing production items starting October 28th is when he made his announcement. If we go to the next slide. So if you consider those two that two-part criteria um for any affirmative housing um production related policy that was approved by the council, there were five items that we identified where there was an affirmative policy approval vote um that met that two-part criteria. The first happened the first two items happened on August 12th, both by 61 votes. The first of those was it the adoption of a resolution of intent related to SB9 and 450 and SP 1123. We'll talk a little bit more about what's contained in that that resolution of intent here in just a moment. The other was the introduction and adoption of our emergency ordinance for the AHPP program. September 9th, there was a vote on high-rise, the definition of a high-rise and single stair provisions. That vote was approved on a 61 vote by the city council. On September 30th, the council approved the building code um which is an annual requirement by October to approve the building code submitted to the state so that effective January 1, all building permits that are applied for have a standard under which those plans are going to be reviewed. That was approved on a 70 vote September 30th. The last item that fell within the two-part criteria was the direction to extend and amend the AHPP program that was approved on September 30th by a 5 to one1 vote. [snorts] We go to the next item free call. Um, one of the items that we did approve on August 12th was the ROI for SP9, SP 450, and SP 1123. Um, one of

the other items we identified, this was a vote the council took back in July related to the approval of an emergency interim zoning ordinance for SP1 1123 to institute that policy. We're recommending that we repeal that policy tonight as part of item 11 C. Currently, there's litigation that exists related to that approval of that emergency interim zoning ordinance. Um that challenge, legal challenge is not related to Mayor Promwick's employment, but it is existing litigation. That emergency interim zoning ordinance does go beyond what state law requires. We haven't had any applications using that legislation. We are recommending tonight that we repeal that particular piece of legislation. We go to the next slide. Of the five items [snorts] though that are um identified in outside of the repeal of the emergency interim zoning ordinance, um there's only one item that we're suggesting the council reratify. The re ratification item we're suggesting is for the approval of the building code. That building code approval, recall, was approved on a 70 vote on September 30th, 2025. The reason that we're proposing that we reratify the building code is when it was approved back in September. It was transmitted to the state January 1st has occurred. All building applications were currently receiving are being um assessed concurrent with the building code that the city council previously approved. To undo that and revote and resend it to the state now would create um significant permit processing challenges. We do think it's appropriate to reratify the vote for the building code. It's also important to note the single stair regulation is not a part of the building code. The single stair regulation that the council um

directed adoption of on September 9th that's contained in an administrative instruction, a procedural guideline document. The council can certainly ask that we um not move forward with that tonight as part of a separate vote that we're suggesting, but for the building code, we're recommending that it be reratified. If we go to the next slide, the other four items, we are not asking for a reratification of prior actions. The next four actions, excuse me, the next four, the other four items, we are asking for a revote. It really is the council's opportunity to tell um the staff, do you want to continue to move those processes forward as you previously voted or do you want to deny and resend your prior action? That is the council's determination tonight on the other four items. Those other four items um are related to the ROI for SP9, SP 450, and SP 1123. It's related to the high-rise definition and the single stair um co um policy that was directed for implementation. It's related to the AHPP pilot program and that's related to the AHPP program amending and extending the program on a move forward basis. Um the reason again that we're suggesting um these four items um recall one it was a previously approved housing production related policy could be utilized by the public. Um Mayor Promzwick voted on these items and it fell within the date range that we identified. That's why these items are being brought back for a revote tonight so the council can identify how you want to move forward on these items. If we go to the next slide, um certainly correspondence from the public um has been voluminous. We also have heard lots

of comments tonight really related to three particular areas. One, are there other housing production related items where we should revote? Um have we assessed that? We've heard items like the 30th Street decision, the ENA with RPG. What I can tell the city council is the city attorney's office has assessed every item the council voted on within the time period identified. That's the time period we have to go back and look at. We've assessed every item through the lens of is it housing production or not. The 30th Street item was to maintain an existing commercial use, not housing production. based on the assessment of what the vote and the item actually was. The council approved the ENA with RPG is not housing production. It was a contractual relationship with an operator. And so those items didn't fall within the two-part criteria we assessed. Um ultimately what we wanted to identify for the council is really is um the council's prerogative to direct. If there's other items you want us to bring back, we're happy to do that. Um, in addition, we also wanted to verify what the mayor said earlier tonight. If it's assessed that there are other items that should be reconsidered as everything moves forward, we will assess those and bring them back if it's identified that there's additional things we should be revoting on. For example, the 22024 vote on the DDA with Hollywood Community Housing, that item is not on the agenda tonight. It's not an item that we can discuss, but I can tell the city council, the city attorney's office is assessing that matter, and if it needs to be brought back for a vote, we will notify the council and the community and we will bring it back for a revote if that's what the ultimate assessment identifies. Also wanted to touch really on the comment related to SP9, SP 450, and SP 1123.

If we go to the next slide, um there is an ROI that's attached. Um that's another item we've heard a lot of comments from the public on tonight. Um why are we exceeding state law? What we wanted to let the council and community know is um regardless of whether the ROI is adopted or denied tonight, first that adoption or denial does not change any zoning code standards in the city. It starts a process if it is approved. If it's denied, that is 100% the council's prerogative to deny and not approve the ROI. But even if you don't approve the ROI, SP9 SP450 and SP1 1123 are approved state laws that have to be implemented irrespective of whether we update our zoning code um to reflect the regulations the state adopted. You don't have to do that. We believe it would be better to provide clarity on what the states actually authorized and directed, but you don't have to approve it. We still have to follow state law. So SP9, SP 450, SP123 have to be followed. The ROI details are also important. It's drafted very broadly. It does not consider or contemplate any specific amendments to the zoning code. Rather, it directs the planning commission start considering the item and make a recommendation to the city council on how we should approach SB9, SB450 and 1123. What we'd note right now is the city's current SB9 regulations are more expansive than what state law requires. And the adjustment that we've been suggesting through the ROI is to align SB9 locally in our zoning code with state law to make it less expansive than it currently is. That would seem to comport with what we're hearing with the p from the public on that issue. It's also accurate the council previously

provided direction on a more expansive set of SP123 regulations more um expansive than what the state requires but it doesn't direct that that's what we do. This planning commission would initiate a discussion and really the ROI is asking how do we want to implement 1123 um and the council tonight gets to weigh in on that also. Do you want to continue on the pathway of it being more expansive locally than state requirements are or do you want us to follow state law as the recommendation for the planning commission as that process starts? That's what we're doing with the ROI tonight. It is not an expansion beyond state law. It really is regardless of what you do, we have to follow the state regulation. How do you want to follow it moving forward? That's the question before you tonight. And if we go to the last slide, um really tonight what we're recommending again in summary is that one, the city council consider reratifying the prior approval of the building code. That's item 11 C. Um the three other items related to 11C are to revote on the ROI for SP9, SP 450, and SP 1123. um provide direction and revote how you want to handle the high-rise definition and the single stair regulation and to repeal SB123, the emergency ordinance that was previously approved. Those are the 11 C items. And then after we vote on those items and consider how to handle those, we'll deal with the item 10A items which relate to the AHPP program, both the pilot program and the direction moving ahead, the type of program you'd like to have implemented here locally. That's a summary of what is being contemplated tonight for the city council. Again, it is not a reratification of prior actions. It is a revote to provide direction on the items

we've identified that based on the FPPC's guidance letter related to Mayor Promzwick's um employment with hack, what are the items that fall within the time period in question and mayor prom voted on that are related not to direction but to actual policy that was implemented that the public could use. This is the world of issues we've identified. Um, and again, we're committed if there's additional issues that are raised, we're going to continue to assess it, and if there are other issues, we would bring them back in the future. Um, with that, I know the city attorney's office, the city staff, we're all here and available to answer any questions the council may have.

Just really quickly before we get started, um, can we clarify that the guidance from the city attorney's office was under a prior city attorney? I Yes. Yes. It was the initial guidance from the city attorney's office. Yes. And have you sought advice from outside council given that um there were questions raised about the city attorney's office? Yes. Prior to um seeking additional advice from the FPPC and prior to returning with these items this evening. Thank you. Okay. So, I know that council member Negrete is in the queue. I don't see anyone else. So, Council Member Negrete. Well, sorry that was sort of like a city manager report. First of all, can you guys hear me?

Yep, sure can. Did you have question? Do people have questions or do we just want to make comments? No, I mean Okay, go ahead. Questions and comments. I have a question and I have a motion. Is this the appropriate time for 11C because that was sort of an introduction of 11C or was that like part of the city manager? Uh, that was the staff report for 11C. Um, and I think Okay, sorry. We'll we'll allow some uh a round of comments here. Yeah.

So, I just I I've I've got a question. Um you mentioned that you know SP9 um 4501 1123 that um the ROI that it's it's just putting it in the code. But I just want to understand that it's not necessary to have it in our code. Cuz if the state just let's say in the future were to go a different direction, isn't it true that having it in our code would mean that we'd have to downzone which you know would be would not be good for us if we if if we did this if the state did go in a different direction and we wanted to remove it from our code. Is it necessary to put it in our code? So I can start and then um either the manager or the or the uh community development director can hop in. U it is not legally required to put it in. As a matter of practice, the city does generally um implement state laws in the zoning ordinance for clarity and so that um there is a complete um record of what an applicant can come in and um avail themselves of. um with the with your question to the the downzoning um that would not likely be a risk here because the downzoning issue under um SB 330 actually dates back um to 2019 I believe. Um so if we were to um adopt something into the zoning ordinance and state law changed um that would not be an issue. I think um council member Negretti to build on what um city the city attorney just mentioned again to re-emphasize no it's not required that we implement um the um SP9 and SP1 1123 provisions into the municipal code what has already happened previously though we have SP9 adopted into our code the existing SP9 language is more expansive

than what the state requires and that inconsistency is what we're trying to correct to align our SP9 regulation with state regulations. SP1 1123 you don't have to, but you still have to implement and it still exists as a regulation. Um, and really the ROI is a process to start the conversation and ask the planning commission to really assess and weigh in on both of those matters and provide the council with a recommendation. So, there's nothing to be approved um or changed in the zoning code tonight with SB9, SP 450 or SP 1123. Um it really is the initiation of a process. Um so, we've terminated the prior process that the city council started. The item was supposed to go to the planning commission, I think initially in December and then January. We canled both of those hearings pending the decision tonight from the city council's the prior action. There's been a lot of talk about rescending. We we haven't continued with the council's prior direction. Based on what the council decides tonight is how we'll move forward with that matter um moving ahead.

Um okay, mayor, is this the appropriate time to make a motion or are you going around? Uh there's a couple people there's a couple of people in the queue. Um but if you want to have a motion on the floor that that's your prerogative.

Yeah. I mean, I'm going to put a motion out there that I I think I I understand we sort of there it's one item 11c and we sort of talked about them separately, but yet they're lumped together. Um, and I thank you for the clarifying the language because we're not just simply reratifying a technical vote. We're revisiting a set of housing actions that were introduced, you know, discussed, shaped, uh, and voted on by, um, you know, the council member who has since acknowledged a conflict. So, or, you know, we're doing this process to clarify and build public trust. So, I understand the desire to clean up the record. Um, but building all these items together under the label of revoting minimizes what the public is actually asking for, which is, you know, trust, clarity, and a clean process. So, and in my view, we shouldn't we shouldn't actually be discussing any of these things. So, I'd like to make a motion that we, you know, we go ahead and repeal um the EIO, resend 1123, the EIO, the emergency, but that these other issues with the exception of the building codes that unless someone wants to bring these items back separately, these were brought back, these were brought in originally um by the council member who has the conflict. So my to me we like we shouldn't even be revoting on these tonight. They should just be brought forward if someone wants to bring them forward and needs these to needs to discuss these. So, I'd like to table the other items in its entirety and remove any housing related actions within it from consideration tonight with the exception of rescending the emergency ordinance and um the approval of the building codes because I know that's those are the two items that are um not controversial, but I think the rest of them I would I'm making the motion to table them and if another

council member wants to bring those items back then we can. Um, Council Negrete, just so that we're clear and the record's clear, is the motion because there's five recommended actions from the staff. Okay. Um, and let's just go through them in case you don't have this in front of you. Uh, well, the rescending of 1123, the EIO, I'd like to move forward with that. I mean, these are all lumped into one item, which is why

Okay, so sorry. So, recommended action. So, you are asking that we repeal the emergency interim zoning ordinance. That's 11 C sub5. Um, you are also requesting that we ratify the adoption of the building standards code. That's 11 C sub4. Um, and approve the proposed regulatory updates because I, as I understand from our city attorney, those are already going forward with the building code. Can you just clarify that, city attorney?

Sure. So the the um proposed regulatory updates that occurred on um the vote that occurred on September 9th was two parts. Um the f the second part was um a direction to staff to align the um uh definition for high-rise with the state law. That is what got carried over to the building code. So if um the other piece is the single stair piece which as the city manager explained earlier is actually um in a separate administrative um uh document which which is not integrated into the building code. We would recommend then um I I think you can still ratify the the building code without moving forward with item three if you would like because you would be confirming the building code as is which does include the state law definition of high-rise. Just to make that clarification.

And just to clarify, if we don't do three 11c3, does that mean that we don't implement single stair? Uh yes. Okay. Right. So, so just to be Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. No, no. Right. If you table I mean, so if you table the um the prior actions the council currently stand. What we're asking the council tonight is whether or not you want to either vote to continue with that direction or if you want to vote to undo that direction. If you table the action, then your past action is what is the regulation in place. And so tableabling it in effect keeps the regulation.

Okay. Well, I don't want to I don't want to keep it in place. So maybe then tableabling is the wrong word. I want to undo it. My my position is to make a motion that the single stair, the SP9, SP450, SP123 ROI, the um I see you have high-rise definition and single stair together. anything that was brought forward and discussed above and beyond state regul regulations and anything that was discussed by council members Wick that you know could be seen and felt by the community as was discussed and heard tonight um inappropriate for us to even be discussing. I would like to undo those and if like I said if a council member wants to bring those items back because you know like single s for example was a 16 item then they can do that. So, I want to make sure that this isn't confusing and that it doesn't that it's very clear. So,

um, if you want to help with that, city attorney, otherwise we can take out the if it's easier to keep high-rise definition and single stair and just take both of those out, then

No, I I think I think if I if I understand what your motion is, your motion is to move item um 11 C sub5, which would repeal the emergency um interim zoning ordinance with respect to 1123. You would move um also item 11 C sub4 which is to ratify the building code. You would move to um not adopt the resolution of intention and direct staff not to bring forward um anything um going beyond state law with respect to 1123 or SB9. And you would also move um not to move forward with um the administrative procedure for allowing for single stair above state law.

Correct. Just a point of order. Is that actually in order because the item on the agenda is either we're approving the uh 11C3 and you had just mentioned that if we don't move to approve that we are in effect tableabling it and moving forward with the previous action. So is that actually properly agendaized for us to repeal it alto together? I'm just asking the city attorney.

Right. I mean, I think technically you could direct staff the the issue with the administrative thing. So, you could direct staff to I think to stop I don't think it would be I don't know. Yes, you could direct staff to no longer utilize the administrative I think that's okay under the Brown Act. Okay.

No longer utilize the single stair um administrative procedure. All right. I thought the whole point like we're discussing it tonight. I mean, we shouldn't even It feels like it. Okay. As long as my motion is clear and makes sense and it's possible. Um I would love to get a second. I don't know if those are crickets or if you guys put me on mute. Um I mean I I think we can potentially entertain a substitute motion, but I don't hear a second. Ask a second. Yeah, I don't hear a second. Okay, so I

Hold on. I would like to propose I would like to propose a substitute motion then. It's not a substitute. Sorry, a new motion. New motion.

Um, so I just want to be clear that uh it's the intent of this city council, at least me, not to add any new development standards that would add additional height or density beyond what's allowed pursuant to state law. Any implementing ordinance that addresses other standards for small subdivision should also require an appropriate contribution to the city's affordable housing production program. And I just want to say that the planning commission has already had extensive discussions about SB123 and they have indicated that they are not supporting not supportive of going above and beyond state standards. So, with that being said, um I would on 11C agree that uh we repeal the inter uh zoning ordinance and uh approve and not and not move anything forward on on SP 1123, just implement state law as written. Um, but I I cannot agree to uh rescend and repeal the high-rise building definition because that was a 70 vote and we already have projects underway. Um, and I feel like that could put us in in legal trouble. Uh, so that that is

Sorry, I agree with everything you were saying. Sorry, Council Gate. I agree with everything except except um 11C3. Do I do think that we need to move forward with approving the proposed regulatory updates to the high-rise building definitions in single stair? We that's but that's what we just said. She that's you're just saying the same exact thing I just said. She said that she separated out high-rise definition because it was by the state. So you're So what you're saying is you want to move forward with single stair and and I thought you had just said you did not want to move forward with that.

Right. I didn't, but nothing to do with the high-rise definition because you made the comment about it getting us in trouble. She separated that out, the city attorney, if I'm correct, and said it was just that she said, "Yes, I can separate that out. That's just the state's definition." But so, okay, everything you're saying is exactly what I just said, except you want to move forward with single stair. Just so I understand.

Yeah. So, there's 11, three, and four. You're correct. Four. four you were okay with with ratifying the California Building Standards Code, but I did not want to uh remove three, which was also approving the proposed regulatory updates to high-rise building definitions and single stair multif family building provisions given that um we've already moved down this path through uh what was at the time a 70 vote and I understand we're here today to reconsider these items, but I would just say my vote remains the same as it did previously uh for this item and that's why I would like to keep it. I'm okay. I'm confused why single stair and high-rise definition are together just because maybe

single stair was something new and high-rise definition you're saying uh city attorney is the state's definition. Are we doing something above and beyond with this high-rise definition?

So So right the disc No. No. So the high-rise definition defaulted from something lower than state law back up to what state law is. That was the that was the direction that was given to council that got integrated into the building code. The reason why we're discussing both single stair and high-rise together is because that's how they were originally presented to the city council. If you would like to uncouple them, you can, but that is just how they are being presented to you. Um, just in order to help frame the discussion because those that was the vote that was originally taken, if that makes sense. Oh, I wanted to uncouple them because single stair was something above and beyond that we did not currently do. The high-rise definition was just keeping in line with the state definition, which is something we're legally obligated to do. So, anything that was newly introduced and above and beyond, which includes single stair, was what I understood to be uncoupling it. But now I get it. So, mayor, you're you're wanting to add in the single stair, correct? But um again like I uh iterated uh we we would like to comply with state law on SP 1123

right well that's we have to comply with state law okay but not go over and above and is there a second on that oh sorry go ahead may I ask a clarification so I understand uh the policy that you are putting forth with respect to number two are you proposing to adopt the ROI but give that that direction to not go beyond state law with respect to 1123. Right. So, okay. Correct. But again, given that we would like to uh any implementing ordinance that addresses other standards for small subdivision should also require because we again we are committed to affordability. We want to require an appropriate contribution to the affordable housing production program. Perfect. Thank you.

I'll I'll second that. Did you want to say anything? Council Raskin and Zernit are in the queue. Yeah. Um, so just to be clear for the public, this motion is to not go above and beyond state standards for 1123. Uh, I'm supportive of this motion. Uh, I would, uh, also just clarify that we had extensive discussion about the single stair rule. It it's not a building code amendment. We're we're we're we

moving forward with an alternative means and methods plan or program um which would uh require extensive vetting from building officials and the fire department. Um I uh I mean as as the mayor said, the planning commission has had extensive discussions about SB123. uh and uh for folks who haven't heard it, I I do recommend uh listening into their discussion about it because it it is illuminating. Um I am supportive of the uh notion that uh to the extent that we can uh incorporating HPP provisions into uh small lot subdivision standards I think is is going to accomplish uh generally our our goals. The only thing that I I would add and and ask this is a friendly amendment to the maker and seconder is if we can give direction to uh explore as part of the ROI um and maybe this is a little premature but uh you know opportunities for amending local subdivision standards so that if there are small lot subdivisions created pursuant to state law that they can be done without creating HOAs or other common interest developments. As someone who was previously in an HOA, I'm very supportive of that.

So, I just had a question on the ROI. Um, so I I see that SB9 is mentioned here and I understand that we have gotten some uh feedback from HCD. Does that include rolling back our Does the ROI include rolling back our more expansive version of SB9 and um seeing what the planning commission comes back with in terms of any u recommendations for other uh lot splits. I'll say

that that's correct. Our current version of SP9 incorporates a provision that ex um exceeds state standards related to um state law has a provision on ownership structures for SP9 um related projects. We've gone beyond um what state law requires in that particular um area and it's inconsistent with state law or SP9 ordinance. Um the ROI seeks to remove that inconsistency, align SB9 with state law. So really the SP9 discussion on this issue is to um basically dial back the standard to state law given that we had previously exceeded state law and I see Heidi may have something else to add to that.

Right. That's correct. So so previous discussions with the council and again this ROI does not um uh dictate a particular outcome. So any direction you want to give tonight can be considered by the planning commission. Um but yes, the um HCD gave um there were actually a a few expansions on um SB9. As you know, there's the one in the housing element that allows for additional units on lots over 10,000 square feet. Um but there were also some other ones about larger unit sizes. Um those the HCD was um fine with. HDD did recommend um that there was an inconsistency. You cannot um allow under SB9. Um there is a potential issue with um not requiring owner occupancy under SB9. So this ROI would allow for us to sync up with S for um with SB9 on that piece. And if council or anybody wants to um um allow for owner occupancy to remove an owner occupancy requirement, that would be a separate local ordinance um governing lot splits in the R1 that did not require owner occupancy for that. And that that is all a discussion you could have at a future time. But the alignment with state law would be something that we would be doing in order to just clean that up. So at a high level, if I'm understanding this correctly, these actions would for the most uh for the overwhelming majority of this is just aligning us with state law. Is that accurate?

Yes. Okay. Yes. And that's what we're hearing from the council is what you would like to see. I don't want anything that's not aligning with state law. I just want to be clear. Um, I also just want to ask a clarifying question because we've some commenters said, "Oh, you don't even need to go to the planning commission to implement SB123. Do we need to go to the planning commission?" If you want to amend the zoning ordinance to implement 1123, yes. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. And sorry, I had like one more question and it has just gone out of my head. Um, I'll I'll come back if I have it if it if I remember. Thank you. Council member Hall, are we in comments? Sure. Yeah.

Okay. I'm gonna take the floor for a second here. So, um, it's my understanding that the exploration of these increased standards would make it easier to build three-bedroom town homes. The reason we have a plethora, maybe that's the wrong word, a bunch of two-bedroom plus loft town homes, uh, and there are hardly any three-bedroom town homes is because it's incredibly hard to build three bedrooms into two stories in subdivided lots with the setbacks provided for in state law. So, I would like to continue to study these expanded um the potential for expanded uh zoning standards to allow for more family housing in this city. you know, the previously, you know, I think a member of the public stated that these in increased development standards would allow for more McMansions. The increased development standards in the EIGO, as they currently are before we repeal it, are only for multi-unit projects with the express purpose for providing an alternative to building the mansions. Um, you know, I've I've heard that uh some folks don't understand where I or other members of the council feel about housing. So, you know, at the Democratic Club as a member, I supported SB9 and SB423. I think I was pretty clear during my campaign that I supported, yes, gently densifying across the city. For example, at Santa Monicans for Renters Rights and the Santa Monica Democratic Club, I wrote, and I quote, "Santa Monica should be willing to gently increase densities and raise height restrictions throughout most of the city to ensure that new housing, especially affordable, is located throughout the city, in our high resource neighborhoods, near schools, downtown, and next to transit. At the neighborhood association forum during the lightning round, we were asked whether we supported SB10 to allow multi multif family units in single family neighborhoods. I along with candidates

Wade Kelly, Erica, Leslie, and now council members Raskin, Snell, and Zernitayas said yes. The four of us were endorsed by multiple pro-ousing organizations. I think maybe all the pro-housing organizations that that act in Santa Monica. And from this disas I have said multiple times that if we do not start facilitating the development of town homes and condos we will end up in a bifurcation of our housing stock massive big block developments like we see in downtown or towers that were entitled under the builder's remedy when we fell out of compliance with the housing accountability act or we will end up with more McMansions. I personally choose to continue pursuing two to threebedroom town homes and condos for families that the middle class can afford. So yes, I do believe that voters supported that vision in 2024 and I believe they will support that in 26 and 28 and 30 and 32. I want more affordable housing and I want the private market to build as much of it as possible which is why I support our new off-site program. I do not want skyscrapers in our neighborhoods. I do not want more McMansions and I do not want housing at the airport when it closes. But that is why we must build in other places, ensuring that our highest resource neighborhoods, not the Pico neighborhood, not Mid City, start carrying their fair share and that we at least attempt to start meeting our arena requirements in a way that isn't building massive towers and that we are creating more uh more housing for families. Um so I will not be supporting the motion. Um and I'll leave it at that. Council member Raskin,

I you know I I uh appreciate what you're saying, Council Member Hall. I think um you know, we're we're we're dealing with a regulatory landscape where these laws exist already at the state level. We we have 1123, we have SP9, we have uh ADU laws that allow for now up to what is eight ADUs potentially on a lot. Um, and I'm hopeful that these can be used effectively to build uh affordable home ownership opportunities in areas where families have historically been excluded and segregated from communities. Uh, I really hope we can get there. Um, but the reason why I did not support 1123 when it came back before and the reason why I'm supporting this motion is because we do need to make sure that it's threading the needle for providing affordable housing. And to the extent that we can include AHPP uh requirements in here, I think that's important. Um, but I also think it's important to make sure that uh we we get this right and this is going to go through the ROI process. Uh, we'll have an opportunity to look at this further. The planning commission will have an opportunity to look at this further and it's going to be an ongoing conversation. But, um, you're right that there's a problem that there are not affordable opportunities to live in these neighborhoods. But that's a conversation that's uh not going to get solved today and uh it's one that uh is part of a much broader uh policy directive. But I look forward to working with all of you to get there.

Um sorry, Council Member uh Negrete actually was in the queue. Council member Negrete,

thank you. Sorry. Yeah, I was trying to like unmute. Um, I I just look, I'm voting tonight to remain consistent with my prior votes. We're kind of mushing things together and it's like, you know, some of the things on this buffet are okay and and then we're like smooshing in some some things that aren't okay. And so it it makes it [clears throat] really difficult and I just I'm not comfortable with the whole process. But I I mean, I want to stick with what I've heard repeatedly from our community. And you know, we talk a lot about this misty middle and middle income. I think we need to redefine what is middle income. I mean, I I guess I would say I'm in the misty middle. I sometimes feel middle lower income because I couldn't even afford to rent an apartment and any of these new developments. So, the idea that I'd be able to afford a townhouse is like insane. So, we're not building for the middle income. We're not building for teachers. We're not building for people like myself who live in rent control departments who, you know, feel trapped because they can barely save up to buy something five states away. So everything I'm [clears throat] seeing going up isn't we're passing all these policies in Santa Monica to overdensify. And I don't see anything being developed no matter how much housing and no matter how tall we go and how many staircases. I mean, at this point, we can tell people there's no staircases. you have to jump out with a rope for a fire to add extra units and it's still going to be unaffordable. So, I support affordable housing, but what is that? We haven't defined it. I don't support density for density sake, especially when the community is being asked to absor absorb significant impacts without seeing the affordability delivered at the same pace. And too often, as we see all up and down Lincoln Boulevard, um market rate units move forward quickly. 11,800 a month for a three-bedroom, two bath. I I mean, I'd like to see what it would be

for this townhouse. We're talking about these mythical town houses that, by the way, we can't force people to build. They're going to build what, you know, is right for their investors and is right for their bank accounts. They're not going to build based on these values. I don't think these developers are thinking, "Oh my gosh, you know, we should really provide some housing for people who are in this tax bracket." No, they're providing housing for the returns for the tax brackets of the folks that are investing in it. So, while affordable housing lags behind, we've got all this market rate housing being built or the affordable housing is promised later. That imbalance totally matters. Our residents are making real sacrifices on parking, infrastructure, scale, and neighborhood character. And those sacrifices need to be, you know, need to result in tangible and inclusive affordability, not just increased unit counts or affordability offsite. So until we see policies that truly deliver affordability alongside density, I can't support continuing going down the same path.

Okay. Um, no capping. Uh, Council Member Zernaya,

thank you. Um, and I hear what our my colleagues are saying and concerns and I understand where where folks are coming from and I understand that the planning commission has already extensively discussed 1123. Um, if it would be friendly to the maker and the seconder, I would prefer for us to also include direction to the planning commission as part of the ROI to explore and come back to us with options that would allow for larger family-sized homes and more equitable home ownership opportunities. And that may potentially include looking at which th at whether there is a threshold of number of homes um built as a particular development at which point maybe the AHPP um that may be exempt from it if it's below five, six, four units. I don't know what that looks like, but I think that if we can ask the planning commission to explore that and come back to us with recommendations, I would prefer to see that. Um, the smaller homes like town homes and separately smaller homes like smaller buildings, I should say, like town homes and condo buildings are generally speaking not investorowned. They're typically built by kind of smaller developers, middlesized developers, folks who typically have a foothold in the community in which that they're building. They're not folks that are coming in from out of state or these larger kind of private equity or investment firms. Um, so I think that those types of folks generally have a vested interest in building homes that are conducive to the surrounding environment and are within um the

general vibe so to speak of the the place that they're building in. And uh to answer a question that council member Negrete asked of what is affordable housing, what is the definition? The definition of affordable housing or housing that is affordable to you is housing that costs no more than roughly 30% of a person's income. And I just want to make the distinction between affordable housing and deedrestricted affordable housing because affordable housing is just housing that is affordable to the person that is purchasing or renting it. Deedrestricted affordable housing is the types of homes that would be created pursuant to the AHPP um affordable housing production program that are restricted in the deed for a certain period of time to only be rented uh at a certain percentage of the area median income. So for example, if the area median income is $100,000 a year, the 80% level would be no more than $80,000 a year. So it would be something that would be affordable, i.e. no more than 30% of $80,000 per year. And hopefully that helps um kind of clarify and and um explain that a little bit more. Thank you.

Sorry, Council Member Hall, just before you go again, I just wanted to make a quick comment. um city attorney or planning director. Do we have any SP1 1123 projects in the city that have been approved? As the director comes up, I know we don't have any that were utilizing the um interim zoning ordinance. And what is happening to that one? It's in process. Okay. It's in process. And does it comply with state standards? Uh yeah, it does.

Yeah. So, I mean, I think for me, I know that I I appreciate what council member Hall said, but uh you know, we like we said, we have one project that has not yet been approved, and I haven't seen any renderings, drawings, etc. that show uh that um family housing cannot be accomplished within state standards. Which is why I think you know we need to hear a little bit more from the community from the planning commission even though the planning commission has kind of made their uh voice clear on this that uh they're not supportive of going beyond the state standards. But I've talked to several of the planning commissioners and they too said that they had not seen like a full analysis um from staff and other experts as to you know how many bedrooms could be built in a townhouse under state standards versus something else. What could affordability standards look like to put some guard rails around this um and ensure that we're actually accomplishing what we say we want to accomplish. So that's why um you know I made the motion that I did. I think it's important um that we don't allow additional height and density beyond what's uh allowed pursuant to state law. Um, and I it doesn't sound like we have uh I mean myself, Council Member Snell, and and Ellis sound like they're supportive, but I I I don't hear um any other uh support for for our motion. So, I don't know if we want to take a vote or how you want to handle

I council Hall is next. So, yeah. Yeah, I'd like to try a substitute motion. Um, so I would move the staff recommendation for 11C providing direction for the ROI on SB123, which would allow planning to continue to explore standards which might exceed state law in order to facilitate more bedrooms, on-site parking, and potentially reaching a point where participation in our AHPP is financially viable. And I would encourage any applicants to who uh want to use these standards to come forward with designs or renderings that show the difference on what extended expanded standards might accomplish. And is the rest of the motion the same?

It's uh moving the staff recommendation with that direction for the ROA. I'll second that. [clears throat] Yeah, that was a substitute motion. I'm That's nice. Uh, we can vote on it. Okay. Council members Ernit Skay. Oh, did you want to say something? Were you No. Yes. Council member Snell. Yes. Mayor Promzig is absent. Council member Ain. No. Council member Hall. Yes. Council member Negrete. No. Mayor Trous. No.

Uh, Mayor, if I may explain my no vote. I didn't get a chance to ask for friendly none before the vote, but um I my my concern remains the same that there we we didn't give direction about affordability requirements. Um, but I I'm hopeful that as this goes through the ROI process that we can come back and address that in the future. But that didn't pass. That motion just failed. Sure. No, I mean I was just I'm just So that was that was a substitute motion. Do we want to vote on the original motion? That was the one that I made. I think Yeah. Yes. 3. That's why I said

my motion does uh include affordability requirements. Yeah, it's okay. I know. Um so maybe we can vote on that one. That was um motion by um Mayor Terrosa, seconded by Council Member Sel. Right. There were amendments mentioned by council member Raskin and Zernit Skaya. Does that not include them? I there were. I think there was amendments um to provide direction. What was your amendment council member? Um

my uh my amendment if it was friendly to the maker and the seconder was to include direction to the planning commission to explore and come back with options that would potentially allow for larger family-sized homes and more equitable home ownership opportunities and to explore and um provide basically analyze if there is a threshold at which um the AHPP P may not be conducive to uh providing more homes like if it's four units or five units or something if it's below a certain threshold if it could be exempt from the AHPP.

Oh yeah. I mean I think that uh that's actually contemplated in in our motion here. Um because any uh ordinance that addresses these standards would also require an appropriate contribution. And it's possible that the planning commission comes back and says, "Look, we're developing two units. It's not appropriate that there be a contribution to the HPP given the size." So that would be So that is if what you're saying is that it would effectively be included in your motion for the planning commission to look at at which point and it looks like

Okay. But but I think the question is is would you rather reach a point where a project is financially viable so that it can contribute to affordable housing production deed restricted affordable housing production and if you are willing to exceed state law to reach that point is that what you're saying and I believe that's what council members sky is suggesting.

That could be what the planning commission comes back with. I'm asking them to look at all possible options that may get us to the end result that we want to see, which is more family-sized homes, more equitable home ownership opportunities, and more affordable housing, whether or not it is actually deed restricted affordable housing or affordable to more middle uh I think we're open to hearing any recommendations that the planning question has. They'll say say right now I'm not then why limit it to I'm not interested in entertaining something that goes beyond state law but I don't know if the

well the plan we don't know what the planning commission is going to come back with something you know they might once they have more information come back to us with something that may exceed state law and we don't know I don't want to presuppose what the planning commission is going to come back with because I think that was the issue that we ran into the first time around of where the planning commission was um appeared to be from what I understand fairly hesitant because they felt it it seemed like they felt they were being told to do something rather than being asked for their opinion and their professional expertise. And I want to make sure that we are you know we we had the boards and commissions item earlier. I want to make sure that we are fully utilizing the the professional expertise and the knowledge of the folks that are on the planning commission. Um, Miss, so you're asking if we would amend the motion. Uh, Miss Yao, can you can I just ask a question? When the planning commission contemplates these items that are sent to them by city council or just things that they're contemplating, um is that in the normal course of their analysis that they would look at recommendations to council that would exceed state law? It's the planning commission has the full discretion to make whatever recommendation they want to make to the city council, including going above state law, unless the council explicitly says absolutely don't do that. Um I what I'm hearing tonight though is that you could give that direction to say don't go beyond state law but we would like you to investigate what I'm hearing you know what is the feasibility of like a contribution to the AHPP like beyond just sort of our standard programs we've done that assessment estate

sure and and I guess it would it also be appropriate to say look in your we're giving you discretion in your professional expertise to come back to us with what you think is the best scenario given that we want to establish more. It would be better to establish like these are the goals we're trying to achieve. Give that general direction and so the commission then has the latitude we have the latitude to give them the studies necessary to make you know latitude. I also Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So what I understand is, you know, an interest in an HPP, an interest in whether smaller subdivisions can be created without an HOA or common interest development and options for familysiz homes and more equitable home ownership opportunities and also like in addition to the HPB's explor threshold where it might not apply. So almost creating you know something unique you like for this nature of smaller subdivision and how they might contribute to affordable deed restricted affordable housing in some way. Um, you know, and we can certainly investigate all of that, you know, with the planning commission and, you know, they would make the recommendation to the council. Could I Mayor I don't know if you saw my hand. Sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry. Is there on teams a hand? I didn't I didn't we can't see it. Okay. Um, Council Member Hall, then Council Member Negrete. Go ahead, Council Member Hall.

Uh, I had a question for Director Yo. Um, so would would it be fair to say that if we were to provide restrictive direction such as don't exceed state law, it might hinder your ability to make or the planning commission's ability to make recommendations to find standards that three bedrooms or on-site parking or participation in the AHPP. Um I I don't think I would state it like that that black you know I I think that we could certainly receive the direction is that you know there is an interest in not exceeding state law right however you know it may be just looking at this list like it may be necessary to facilitate some of these things if you're interested in you know receiving the full scale of that recommendation you know but on balance all the considerations exactly yeah so

but that would require us not giving explicit direction to not exceed state law Sorry. Thank you. Okay. Is the seconder friendly with the Oh, my apologies, Council Member Negoti. Yeah. I Why is the AHPP like lumped in here? Can we separate that out? We were just trying to figure out how to generate more money for affordable housing. Right. [snorts] So, if there would be an opportunity No, no. I I I'm not talking about I'm saying like we're voting on all these we're revoting on these things and that is al Why can't we separate that out? Oh, that's the next item. That's 10 uh 10A. We haven't gotten there yet.

Okay. Because you guys are talking Well, it's listed on there as the list of things we're revoting on. That's up on the screen. And you're talking about the AHPP. Uh yeah, I guess that was a staff report issue, but we're doing 10A after this. We're we're on 11C. We're on 11C right now. Okay. So, what is the motion? Sorry. Go ahead. The city attorney I was just going to clarify that the discussion about AHPP in this context is about is about how to integrate it into these um projects that would be subject to the ROI, right? to generate as to generate to generate money out of these projects that would be small lot subdivisions under state law

because we all said that we care about affordable housing and we feel like it's important to generate um revenue for affordable housing but right okay I just feels like we're going a little up you your a motion though can you just repeat your motion because the the substitute failed correct so what's the motion that's being voted on next because we're going off onto this discussion about generating money, but aren't we just revoting or potentially rescending? I understood your motion to be pretty much exactly what I had proposed, except for the fact that you want to keep single stair.

Correct. And then um I made an additional comment that we direct the planning commission to address uh standards for small subdivisions that also require an appropriate contribution to the city's affordable housing production program, i.e. generating more revenue for affordable housing. Okay, that's an addition. That's additional. But you're rescending. Can you just clearly list everything one more time? We're rescending we're doing Can you just clearly reate it?

Yep. So 11C, we would adopt the findings uh of exemption under SQA. We would um uh adopt a resolution directing the planning commission to initiate uh a a public process um for the small lot subdivisions IE1 1123. Um we would approve the proposed regulatory updates to high-rise buildings. Um ratify the adoption of the building standards codes and repeal of the ICO and with the additional direction that it's the intent of the city council. um that we don't allow uh or excuse me that we don't add news development standards um that would add height and density. Any implementing ordinance uh that addresses other standards for small subdivision should require an appropriate contribution to the affordable housing production program. Then council member uh Zernitzkaya asked if we could give the planning as a friendly amendment if we could give the planning commission a little bit of latitude in their expertise as planning commissioners to come back to us. Then Miss Yo uh articulated that it's our goal to create more family housing and um affordable housing. So giving them those parameters within what they've heard. How do they uh recommend we proceed uh with 1123?

Sorry, mayor. It feels like this is still going beyond state law and this is still an ROI on 1123 to go beyond state law. Am I missing something? I think I had asked the city attorney earlier in the discussion if we want to implement 1123 pursuant to state law if we need to go back to the planning commission with an ROI and the answer was yes. So yeah, in order to integrate it into even if you want to do nothing beyond state law but just integrate the provisions of SB9 into the zoning ordinance, you do need to return to the planning commission. Yeah. So that's um I don't believe so you're not I'm not giving direction to go beyond state law. I'll just be clear.

Right. But then you're not really rescending everything with the exception of [snorts] the single stair which is what I had originally proposed and you were like it's everything except I want to include single stair. It feels that this then you're adding in this production conversation to generate more affordable housing. Like can we just separate that part out because it feels like that's what's confusing what was the revoting that was on the table. Mayor, if I may clarify. Oh, sorry. Council member Rasking. I think what

if you want to clarify. Yeah, I just I just want to clarify that the AHPP program that I mentioned in my uh ask for a friendly amendment is referring to the overall city's affordable housing production program, not the offsite affordable housing pro uh HPP pilot or the uh program that we'll be discussing as 10A.

Maybe it would be more clear if we said generate revenue for the affordable housing trust fund. I I understand that, but that you're you're still talking about creating more housing above and beyond in order to do that. I'm just talking about the revoting. So, I mean, I know SB9 might have to go back to the planning commission, but 1123 doesn't even have to go back to the planning commission at all. I believe the city attorney I I I don't know that that's correct. Sorry, city attorney, can you please clarify?

Yes. If if the council does not move forward with the ROI, SP 1123 still exists, applications can be processed by the city under SB123. There would not be any provisions in the zoning ordinance, however, implementing SB123. That's that's what would happen. And if you do not move forward with the ROI, then that cleanup that we've been discussing about um aligning our SB9 regulations with state law, that would not be happening either. So it has to go back. So it has to go back to the planning commission. So it has to go back. So 1123 has to go back to the planning commission.

No, SB we would we recommend bringing SB9 back to the planning commission so that we can make that fix to align state law with the current regulations. 1123. We generally do incorporate state law provisions into the zoning ordinance. It is not a legal requirement. You do not have to do it. But if you want to incorporate those provisions into the zoning ordinance, then it would need to return to the planning commission and it would need to start with this ROI. Right. So it doesn't have to. Yeah. Council member. So exactly what I said. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Go ahead. Um Council No,

I just want to be really clear. Sorry. appreciate that. Um, we also could vote item by item if that helps, but council member uh Hall, sorry, is there a motion on the floor? Yes.

Okay. [laughter] Thank you. I'd like to make a substitute motion then. Uh, I would like to move the staff recommendation with direction to our planning department and planning commission to explore tradeoffs that include staying within state law. Uh and also exploring what increased development standards might mean to produce greater family housing or more affordable housing or increased uh participation in our affordable housing trust fund contributions.

I'm happy to second if we can also include more equitable home ownership opportunities. Sure, that's friendly. All right, I'll second that. Okay, Council Member Negrete, can I speak to this motion? Sorry, Council Member Raskin was in the queue.

Yeah. Um, so I think that the reason why the ROI lumped this together and please speak up if I get this wrong, is that there are a lot of new state laws that deal with small lot subdivisions, SP9, 1123, bunch of other ones. And so it's I I I think important for us to be talking about all of the different local standards for these in conjunction with one another. And so that's why I thought it made sense for us to do an ROI with respect to all of these new state laws. Um I really liked what uh council members said about uh at least we're not deciding anything tonight. Nothing's getting decided tonight. this is just an ROI. I I really like what you said about giving uh at least some direction to look at yeah, how do you create truly affordable housing? Can you get some tradeoff to use council member Hall's term in this motion uh to get us there whether seed restricted or naturally occurring affordable housing? Um Council Hall, that's what you did in your original motion. I apologize for missing that. Uh but um yeah, this is this is not the time of decision. Uh, this is just the time of opening the door for something in the future. So, I'll I'll support this motion.

Great. We can take a vote. Council member Negretine, no. Council member Hall, yes. Council member Rascin, yes. Mayor Promake is absent. Council member Snow, yes. Council member Zernit Skayan, yes. Mayor Terosis, no. But motion passes. Great. Okay, moving on to item 16. No, no, 10. 10 A. No, we said 16. We said 16. Oh, we're going to do 16. So, you can leave. Okay, great. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. We are going to do 16. That was an agenda management. The hour is late. Um, mayor. Yes.

May I request that we hear public comment on 10A before we hear 16F? Because I know the members of the public have been waiting a while. Thank you. I would love for them to be able to get home and get some sleep before us. Is that amendable to everyone else or are we not allowed to do that? I mean, I think the intent was to um because we have a recusal on 10A. That's the issue. Oh, okay. Understood. Okay. Let's We can't do that. You know what? I I I don't mind stepping outside. Okay. Step outside then. Now, thank you. [laughter]

Okay. We're going to call all these names that are probably not still here. I I just want to put it on the record again that uh I'm going to recuse myself from 10A. After the city council acted to adopt the AHPP pilot program on August 12th, 2025, I became aware that Cypress Equity Investments became a participant in the pilot program. I am chair and president and my spouse is the CEO of a nonprofit that's located at a property owned by Cypress Equity Investments. Because Cyper Emp is now a participant as the as the council considers the program this evening, I will recuse myself now. I'll be back.

Okay. Karen Croner, Clara Senica, Gako Gakamo Valentini. Mayor, yes. Would you like to Is this agenda management to hear um public comment? Yes, we're hearing public comment on 10. Would you like to vote on agenda management? Oh, so that was um Council Member Zernet Sky made a motion. I'll second it. Let's vote on whether or not we can hear the public comments uh for 10 A and uh before we hear the 16 items. Council member Zkaya. Yes. Council member Snell is absent. Mayor Promzik is absent. Council member Arasin, yes. Council member Hall,

yes. Council member Negrete, yes. And Mayor Troas, yes. Thank you. And

Okay. Well, you know, I think what might be easier is if you signed up for 10A and you did not hear and you already heard your name called and you're here to comment on it, please come forward. And you can just state your name as you talk. Is that okay? Uh, madam city clerk. Okay, great. John C. Smith, your name is on here. Okay, folks. a lot of talk about affordable housing and uh you know I I I remember coming to these chambers 10 years ago and I think Denny Zayn was the one and came up and said you know we got to get 30% from developers and then that and I I came up after him. I was going to talk about something else and I I doubled down on it because he was so eloquent in his pursuit of this 30% goal. Well, you know, then nowadays we've been getting 10 to 15%. And all of a sudden, we're not getting anything and nobody's building anything. So, there's this AHPP program. And I just think that so now we're going to give developer five more years to maybe come up with the affordable housing. So, while we're not building anything right now, we're not going to get anything affordable built for another five years. And then at the end of the five years, um, somebody can kick in $160,000 a unit and be gone. And meantime, there's a there's a project, uh, 120 units on Fourth Street that's going to cost more than a million dollars per unit. And I I just think that, you know, all these policies, we're talking about affordable housing. We should actually be producing some. And and it seems like we're not producing hardly any at all. And I think that that's where the city and the state

are going wrong and we ought to redouble our efforts to see what we're doing. Why can't we, you know, it's like I got to buy nine Teslas to get one used Prius. I I shop at Trader Joe's. I don't shop at Bristol Farms. So why are we allowing all this high highest market rate housing to be built and we're not building the kind that we need? And and at the airport, it's now below market rate housing. We're not even talking affordable at the airport anymore. It's all below market rate. If we're going to build affordable housing and say that we're affordable housing advocates, why don't we build affordable housing?

Thank you. Good evening. On item 10A, your three choices for developers to build affordable housing on site does seem to be like a gift, maybe for a campaign contribution. I think considering the reason a certificate of occupancy has to be given to the affordable housing building before the certificate of occupancy would be given to the market rate building is because when it was done the other way or the way you're suggesting the affordable housing wasn't being built or as Albert Einstein said insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results because that's what it looks like you're doing. Um, and I hope you guys take have taken notice that the building at Lincoln and Broadway that was supposed to be units is condominiums. So, I don't know how that happened because it was sold to the public because it was going to be units with affordable housing. Um, so, you know, you have a lot to to account for anyway with the with your misallocation, misrepresentation of the properties. Thank you. Hello, uh, Joseph Conme. Um, so I was originally opposed to the off-site, uh, production program, uh, when it first came up, um, and then sort of saw that all of these units actually got moving. And I think that at this point, and I said this the last time this came before council for extending it, I I think we should extend it to the full 3,000 units. um see see what happens. See if it actually gets housing built because um prior to this we had about a year

where basically no large projects in the city broke ground. Um and this actually got projects where we had empty lots that were sitting for a while that actually were seeing action on them and excited to see this housing actually get built. Um I don't know if we should if it's a good idea to extend this beyond the 3,000 units for the future. I'm uh questionable if that's a good idea, but I think we should uh I support going forward with the 3,000 units. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Dave Rand. Um last year you all were frustrated that there were, as Mr. Cohen says, 3,000 plus units sitting in the queue, stuck, um not moving, unfinancable, essentially dead units. and you took bold action and your action made a huge impact in perhaps the worst financing economic climate for multif family development. Uh this city did something truly innovative and um there are now five projects moving forward that were dead over well over 100 affordable units that will be realized because of that action. It was a success. I would encourage you to adopt uh uh readopt that same uh ordinance tonight for the first thousand units as is. Um the developer who used those units relied on your action, relied on that specific ordinance. You gave very specific direction in September. Leave those thousand units alone. Add some additional bells and whistles for the expanded uh pilot program beyond those thousand units. And um I can tell you that there are developers waiting in the wings to use that new program as well. So I would encourage you very much to adopt the two ordinances in front of you tonight. It's already making a difference. It's going to make a bigger difference. And uh when you do it, I think Santa Monica will be held up as a truly innovative um and successful jurisdiction that is figuring out unique ways to unlock housing in a very very challenging, difficult macroeconomic environment. Thank you. Thanks so much. It doesn't appear as though any other public commenters are here for this item.

No. And our one caller is no longer on the line. Okay. Speak now or forever. Hold your peace. We will bring back Council Member Snell and vote on the 16 items because that's what we agreed to do. Council member Snell, does anyone want to get him by any chance? Thank you. It's taking a coffee break. Okay. Um let us move now to our appointments of city council voting and alternate delegates to regional governmental and membership organizations. Do we need to have a staff report or how should we handle this? City manager.

Um we can certainly provide a quick overview but um I think the item is fairly selfexplanatory. Um one second. Um the recommended action uh action this evening related to appointment of city council voting and alternate de delegates would be um to identify one voting delegate and one alternate to serve on the westside cities council of governments to identify one voting delegate one alternate delegate to participate in monthly meetings for the independent cities association. Similarly, one voting delegate and one alternate delegate for the League of California Cities. Um, with respect to the 2026 Cal C's annual conference to identify one representative to attend the LA County Division meetings of Cal Cities and to identify one voting delegate, one alternate delegate to attend the SCAG general assembly.

Great. Okay. So, um, let's the way we'll handle this, um, I think we'll go item by item. Um, for the Westside Cog, uh, I would I would, um, move because I believe that Council Member Zwick has removed himself from that. Okay. He has, right? So, I'll I'll move Council Member Hall with Council Member Raskin as a alternate as my first um motion. I'll second it. Great. Let's take a vote. And I'm sorry, could you? Council member Hall is the voting delegate with council member Ras. Got it. Okay. Council members,

yes. Council member Snell, yes. Mayor Promick is absent. Council member Rasin, yes. Council member Hall, my boss at work is going to hate me, but yes. Council member Negrete, yes. in the chos. Yes. Motion passes. Does anyone want to make a motion for the ICE Independent Cities Association? I'd like to make a motion. Great.

Um well, I don't know if who wants to be the alternate, but I would like to propose to stay on um because I'm working on a project with a um and I'm on the board now. So, um I'm proposing to stay on and if council member would want to be I think there's an alternate position as well. Correct. In terms of the voting. Sure. Yes. I'll second that. Okay. So, um, Council Member Negrete. Yes. Council member Hall. Yes. Council member Rasin. Yes. Mayor Proick is absent. Council member Snell.

Yes. Council members, yes. And mayor, yes. Uh, Cal City's annual conference. Mayor, would you be interested in being the voting delegate? I would love to do that. Um, council members, do you want As much as I would love to, uh, the sister cities trip is Oh. 24th to the 26th. Are we gonna be at where is it? Germany. [laughter] [gasps]

Well, as everyone knows here, we all have other jobs, so I probably shouldn't go to that anyways. Um, [snorts] Mr. Jerro, I'm we're so Mr. Jerro is going to be very upset. He really wants the mayor to come to his Does anyone want to go to the Cal City's annual conference with me? You should go. Where is it located? Mayor, let's have let's have Mayor Proswick go. Let's see if he can do if he'll do it. He's not even here. Yeah. Well, we can ask him and if he says he is unavailable, we'll bring it back to vote next meeting. Oh my god. You should go on the Sister Cities trip to represent us if you're able to do it.

Okay, fine. Okay, so sorry. Who's going to be at the League of Cities then? [snorts] Uh, League of Cities is where? Can you just I'm sorry. Yes. Uh I'm so sorry. You would be attending the 2026 Cal City's annual conference September 23rd through 25th in Anaheim. Maybe you can go to Disneyland. Um I would Is there Oh, sorry. Is there conflicts? Sorry. Is there conflicts? This is not the conflict that um council member Zernet sky raised was the sister cities trip that No, no, no, no, no. Oh, I I I just meant because I know Jesse had to come off of the other one. I'm sorry. It's like 4:00 a.m. here. Just

No, I know. Um, no. We just weren't sure because he's not here if he can do it, but we can uh volunt him to do it. Got it. Is anyone interested in being the alternate? I'll be the alternate. Okay. Negrete alternate. Okay. So, uh, I move that we request if Mayor Promzwick is available and if he's not, we will return to designate the voting delegate at our next meeting and have council member Negrete as the alternate and I'll second it. Great. Okay. Council member Zernay, yes. Council member Snell, yes. Mayor Promig is absent. Council member Rasin, yes. Council member Hall,

yes. Council member Negrete, yes. your choices. Yes. Motion passes. Great. Now we have Cal City's LA County Division. You would attend monthly meetings on the first Thursday of each month from 6 PM to 8:00 p.m. all throughout LA County. Don't get too excited about that. Who wants to do it? Okay. Council member Zern Skaya would like to do that. I'll second it. Wait, we need an alternate as alternate. No, no, no. There's only one representative. There's no There's no alternate. It says alternate on this sheet on the worksheet. not on the agenda. It doesn't. Great. Council members and Skaya.

So sorry. We're We're very professional here at um 109 a.m. Second. I'll second that. Great. It's 4 It's 4:10 a.m. I know. I'm so sorry. We have Zernet Sky is going to be Let's take a vote. Council member Mcgrete. Yes. Council member Hall. Yes. Council member Rasin. Yes. Mayor Promwick is absent. Council member Snow, yes. Council members, yes. Mayor Troas,

yes. Um, okay. And then for SKAG, this would be attending the Skagg General Assembly on May 7th through 8th in Indian Wells. I will nominate Council Member Rascin uh with Council Member Halls, the alternate. I'll second that. Council member Zerkay. Council member Zerk. Council member, are you okay with that or no? Council member Snow. Yes. Mayor Promzwick is absent. Council member Rasin. Yes. Council member Hall. Yes. Council member Negrete,

yes. And Mayor Trosus, yes. And just to be clear, Council Member Zern, you voted yes on that, correct? Okay. I I didn't hear that. Great. Apologies. I was looking at my calendar to put in the first Thursday of the month. More organized than I am. Um Okay, great. Well, thank you, Council Member Snell. We are now down to our final four. Um you He's recused. Oh, final five. I'm sorry. Lana is on the phone. One time zone and one. Yes. And um mayor, just for the record, I wanted to know council member Snell is leaving the dis at 111 a.m. and then uh council member Zwig left during close session at 9:52 p.m.

Great. We will now move on to agenda item 10A. We're so excited for our staff report. Excited to give it as long as possible. Just kidding. [laughter] I don't know where the clicker is. Oh, thank you.

Um um tonight is just uh to give us a a summary and and a vote um on the expansion of the AP program um and also the pilot. Um, just to give some background, on June 10th, council gave this direction to establish the pilot program for the HPP, August 12th, as was covered before the city uh the council approved an emergency ordinance to establish the first thousand units um that were part of the pilot program. And on September 30th, council received an update and then gave direction to expand the program for all of the remaining eligible projects, which number roughly 3,000 units. Um, this was approved on August 12th as section 964065 of the municipal code as an emergency ordinance tonight. Um, as noted, the recommended action for the council is to introduce for first reading a regular ordinance to codify the pilot program. So for those first 10,00 units and then to also codify an expansion of the program for the remainder of the eligible projects under the same terms and conditions as the August 12th emergency ordinance. Um this action is recommended out of an abundance of caution in light of the advice from the FPPC and the timing of council members's employment with the housing action coalition. Um just as an overview of the original pilot program, these were the um kind of preconditions. It had to be a multiple unit project of six units or more that had obtained its final approvals before August the 12th. Um and to be clear, the AB130 time limits don't apply um to these previously approved projects. They could not have been under construction or have been completed. Um, however, a project that applied under this program

could redesign um and be approved prior to December 31st, 2026 um that could potentially result in even more units and it was limited to the first thousand units. So, we hit that threshold pretty quickly um in terms of six applications that were submitted um and so the pilot program essentially is closed off at this point to new applications. Um that original pilot program had three options, you know, that allowed um the affordable units to be placed offsite at an alternative location and gap financing in 150,000 a unit. There was a rehabilitation option or there was payment of an illoo fee option which aligns with the current um agepploo fee um amounts and those those monies are collected and deposited into the housing trust fund. Um on September 30th, council received an update, you know, on the results of those um that that initial pilot phase and provided direct direction to expand the program, but with the following um changes uh which was to include in the program an option for purchase of um at risk units. Um a community benefit payment. Um this had to do with, you know, in a situation where measure GS was reduced um or um changed or eliminated. Um there was a a direction to increase the gap financing amount um that there should be enforceable milestones um in terms of uh particularly the um the alternative site option and that there be long-term affordability protections for those units. Um this new expansion of the program would be added as a new section to the HPS964075. Um, we want to note that distributed on the dis and also at the clerk's office is uh are some revisions to the ordinance since the agenda was published and I'll go through what those are in green in this presentation. Um, they were clarifications that were added um subsequent to um additional public comment um that was received um on the

published ordinance. Um so you can see here just walking through all of the changes that the council requested um for the gap financing that has been increased to $160,000 per unit and it'll be updated annually based on the ENR building cond uh building cost index engine record building cost index. Um there is a new program option for as at risk units. This would allow the purchase of covenants um for uh uh units um that have affordable deed restricted um um covenants that are at risk of expiring. Um and it it would then require an extension of the covenant for a term of 75 years. We did add some guard rails here. Um you know, there was concern that the city didn't want to be in a position where we are extending covenants for buildings that are not structurally sound, you know, essentially. Um and so the units in this case they must be deemed by the city manager um that the structural condition of the property actually supports the purchase of atrisisk covenants. What that might look like is consideration of like, you know, does the does the building itself meet current building code? Like does it need to be brought up to code, you know, in order for um that uh 75-year extension to be granted? And that would be at the sole discretion um of the city manager. Um again, just provides some guardrails um in that particular program option. Um on the community benefit payment, um the event that measure GS is no longer in place, the applicant must pay this community benefit payment. This is um you know one of the considerations for participation in this voluntary program. Um it will apply to the first transfer of a multiple unit project. So the first transfer not subsequent ones and it would be equal to 5% of the amount of the consideration um of that transfer um or if the tax rate is reduced. So in a case where it's not illimated but it is reduced the applicant would pay the reduced amount plus the difference between 5%. So in in any event, you know, the the intent is that um the

applicant would pay 5%. Um in terms of the enforceable milestones um for option one, which is the alternative site, so this is placing those affordable units at an off-site location. These are some newly added milestones that are um not in the original uh pilot program. So, um, number one is prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first market rate, uh, project, the applicant must submit the entitlement application for the off-site affordable project. Prior to the CFO for the first market rate project, the applicant submits construction plans um, for the off-site affordable housing project. This means that they're submitting it for plan check. Um the off-site affordable housing construction has to commence within 48 months of the issuance of the building permit for the market rate project um or an additional 18 months for coastal zone um projects unless the city grants the extension. And you know finally the provision is if the construction doesn't commence in these time frames or if these time frames are not met the city can exercise its option to acquire the off-site property and can also retain the gap financing amount. the city is getting the land and the money. Um, in this situation, um, in terms of long-term affordability protections, the applicant has to record a right of first refusal agreement on that off-site property. This is for that option one, the alternative site location. So, that means the city would have the first opportunity to purchase that off-site property before it can sell to any other third party. Um, and if the property owner receives a purchase offer, the city could choose to match that offer and acquire the property or allow the sale to proceed. So, this is really the right of first refusal um on that off-site property. Um, so that's that's an overview of all the changes that have been made um uh to the ordinance um itself. And again, copies of the revised ordinance are in front of you, the DAS. really primarily

clarifications on that community benefit payment um you know were things that were made and was highlighted in the presentation. So our recommendation tonight is for council to adopt the SQA findings and to introduce for first reading the regular ordinance that includes two parts which is codification of the original pilot program for those first thousand units at the same terms and conditions as the ordinance that was presented to council on August the 12th. And then it also includes the expansion of the program for, you know, all of the other eligible projects beyond the 10,00 units, but with the different conditions and requirements outlined in today's presentation. Happy to answer your questions.

Great. Um, I don't see anyone in the queue. Council member Lana, if you would like to put yourself in the queue. Uh, council member Zernaya.

All right. Just one quick question about the revised ordinance that um was at our at our chairs. Section 14 says uncontaminated property means a property free from hazardous substances as defined under state and federal law. Does that basically mean if there is a recognized environmental condition in the phase one environmental survey that it's controlled or something of the like and it's fully disclosed and everything? Yes. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Council member Hall,

I don't have any questions, but it doesn't seem like anyone else does. Okay. Uh, I just want to thank staff for all the work on this. I know it's been massive. Thank you, Jing, to you and your team, everyone. Um, and also thank you to my colleagues who, uh, brought this compromise forward through a lot of stakeholder engagement and community organization engagement. So, thank you for that. And I am prepared to move the staff recommendation. I'll second.

Before we vote, I would also just like to echo our thanks. I want to echo everyone who weighed in. I think we had um letters, comments, public engagement from all major community groups uh around this. And I think the answer is clear. We need more housing. We need more affordable housing. And this is um going to unstick some of those units. and really uh proud to innovate on this uh when local jurisdictions around the county and the state are having such a hard time um really getting those affordable units built. So just thank you staff for doing this so quickly. Thank you to our partners for wanting to test this out uh and looking forward. So I guess um I council Rascin, you were in the queue too. Council member Negrete, I don't want to short change you. I just don't see that you have a comment, but that's totally fine. I know. Okay,

it's it's 4:30 in the morning. Okay, we're we're almost done. We're almost done. I know everyone wants to make speeches. I just We've already voted on this. I'm just waiting. Council member Raskin. Yeah, I'll just be quick. I'll echo thanks and um I'll just refer folks to the comments I made when this came back last time before council. You can call the question. Um council member Negrete. No. Council member Hall, yes. Council member Raskin, yes. Council, Mayor Promwick is absent. Um, mayor, uh, Council Member Snell is also absent. Council members Ernit Skay, yes.

And Mayor Troes, yes. Okay, motion passes. Thanks. Uh, and I think we will now move to adjournments. Thank you, staff. I'm so sorry. Can I Can I Yes, you can. Yes, you may. Okay. Thank you, guys. Good night. Good night. Keep it sassy. [laughter]

Before we adjourn today's meeting, we pause with deep sadness and justified anger to honor the life of Keith Porter Jr., a 43-year-old father of two from Northridge who was shot and killed on New Year's Eve by an offduty Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. Mr. Porter is remembered by his family and community as a caring, joyful, and hard-working father who was cherished by those around him. Community members gathered for candlelight vigils to remember him, share their grief, and call for transparency and accountability in the ongoing investigation. This tragedy also brings attention to a troubling gap in oversight. Because the offduty agent does not serve with a local law enforcement agency, local authorities are limited in their ability to compel questioning or face discipline. Requirements that apply to our own officers following use of force incidents. As investigations continue, we extend our sincere condolences to Mr. Porter's children, mother, family, and all who mourn his loss. May this meeting be adjourned in memory of Keith Porter Jr. and in recognition of the profound value of every human life and a commitment to ensuring that no one is allowed to wield deadly authority in our communities without clear responsibility, oversight, and consequence. May we honor Keith Porter Jr's life by supporting his loved ones and standing with the community as they seek answers and healing. And we have a second adjournment. Before we adjourn, we pause to honor the life of Renee Nicole Good, a 37year-old mother of three, poet, writer, and cherished member of her community who was tragically killed in Minneapolis earlier this month. Renee was born in Colorado and pursued her passion for creative expression, earning an English degree and winning a poetry prize while at Old Dominion University. In social

media and personal accounts, she described herself with affection as a poet and writer and wife and mom, reflecting a life rooted in family, creativity, and compassion. On January 7th, 2026, Renee was fatally shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer during a federal operation in a residential neighborhood in Minneapolis. The circumstances of Rene's death, a life ended in a moment marked by an exhibition of poor training, escalation, and excessive youth and unnecessary force, have prompted many to question the aggressive deployment of federal enforcement in civilian communities, and to express hope that such a profound loss might lead to reflection in changes in policies that have caused harm and division rather than safety and justice. Rene's family, including her children aged 6, 12, and 15, and her wife Becca, have spoken of her as a loving, compassionate, and devoted mother, whose kindness radiated in all aspects of her life. They have urged those who remember her to focus on empathy, healing, and support for one another during this unimaginable loss. As we reflect on her life and the tragedy of her passing, we extend our deepest condolences to her family, friends, and all who mourn her loss. May we honor Renee Nicole Good's memory by supporting her loved ones and by reaffirming our commitment to compassion, accountability, and justice for every member of our community.

Thank you. Thank you. I think we all join you in that sentiment um and may their memory be a blessing. So with that being said, I believe this meeting is adjourned and we will see everyone in two weeks.