Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we can bring the meeting, the Santa Monica Planning Commission meeting to order. Uh, it is 601 on September the 17th. Um, let's rise and say the pledge of allegiance. Jim, would you like to join the pledge? United States. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Would you like to take role? Commissioner Fresco, Commissioner Commissioner Landress here. Commissioner Cho here. Commissioner Reese Commissioner Werman here. Chair Hamilton here. Okay, we are ready to proceed with the planning director's report.

Just our new planning director. I think some congratulations are in order. always thought of you that we understood the assignment. Yeah. And Ross is the new Jing. Congratulations. The new temporary and Michelle is the is the new Heidi. So yeah, let's start there.

Just a welcome to I think some old but new faces um as we all settle into our new roles. Again, thank you for the commission's support. Um so with uh my promotion to director, Ross Ferman will be acting planner, planning manager. Um he'll be the leazison, the main leazison to the commission. Um Ethan is still here uh with um Heidi Vonang moving into interim city attorney. Michelle Hugard will be sitting with the planning commission. You might see Heidi pop in from time to time as you know matters arise and things like that, but we're your planning commission crew.

Welcome again. Um just to look at the upcoming commission agenda. So o the October 1st meeting has been cancelled. So we'll have one uh meeting in October which is October the 15th. Um there'll be two resolutions of intention um around the safety element and what we're calling kind of the comprehensive code update uh largely centered around economic recovery. But there's a few items uh you know in there. It's it's a little bit of a cleanup as well. Um and we're trying to kind of gather everything into a bucket to bring forward to the commission later this fall and into the council earlier um in 2026. Um we have the uh draft review of the local hazard mitigation plan and then also a map at 152717th Street. Um upcoming on ARB, uh actually the the ARB met just this uh past Monday, three housing project at 1931 Wilshire and then October 6. Um we have a this is generally a tenative agenda because it's a little bit a ways away, but um 1437 Lincoln and 1399 are tentatively scheduled on that agenda and 2901 Santa Monica Boulevard. Um all those are housing projects. Um on uh the landmarks commission's agenda for October 13th through October 13th meeting um in addition to a STOA for 1128 518th Street um I will note that um that designation was appealed to the city council. So it'll be that um appeal hearing will be coming forward um 26 Arcadia Terrace the landmark constructive merit designation and the CFA at 451 Santa Monica Boulevard. Um council has been busy since the commission last met. So just give you catch you up on updates. Um at their August 12th meeting. Um maybe just items of note. Uh there was a mass timber accelerator grant. Uh this is by led by

OSC. What it is is it funds um kind of grants to uh five potential designers to sort of um pilot, you know, and and kind of help city staff understand um it provides like technical assistance essentially to understand um how um mass timber works in design um the uh Virginia Avenue um rehab project 2033 21101 Virginia Avenue. um that was a loan um approved by council um on that issue and I think you know has been a long-standing issue. It's good to see that come to resolution. Um and then there was a presentation uh the council adopted the creation of um the uh AHPP offsite uh affordable housing pilot incentive program which is the subject of discussion on your agenda tonight. Um and then on September 9th uh there were several items. Um there was a economic recovery um ICO. This was really making permanent uh a lot of um changes that have been an interim ordinance and become permanent in downtown. Um so that's just kind of trying to bring bring those things to a close. Um all all the changes we've made, you know, over the last few years um on the largely around the prominade, but also in the downtown. Um the council approved the creation of the um adult use cannabis program um including the social equity component. So I just want to recognize Tony Kim um staff members um Shira Mo and Anna Fernandez um the key planners who worked on that. Um and uh that will launch I believe it's November right Tony is the intent. Yes maybe won't hold them to that. Um, and there was uh I'll talk about the fiscal distress resolution in just a moment. Um, the council also um approved or or

reviewed, I guess, the proposal for an alternate means and methods process to achieve a single stair design for up to sixtory buildings um and removed the high-rise uh requirement. So this was um an item led by our fire department and also um our building official to facilitate um sort of you know smaller scale housing and kind of see how that works out. Um the and then there was the interim uh city attorney appointment. Um coming back to the uh resolution of fiscal distress. I think there's been you know a lot of discussion around that. I think it's helpful to watch the meeting if you haven't had a chance to to view it. watch the video just to understand what it is and what it isn't. Um it's not a fiscal emergency. You know, it's a a tool um to facilitate uh the city's recovery, you know, as we go around looking at grant granting agencies, talking to legislators as a means to stabilize the city's um financial situation. So, I think it's very important, you know, to see that. And if you haven't seen the slide deck in the video, it's probably helpful viewing um just, you know, for for your own understanding. Um September 30th we will be returning to council um with the AHPP off-site pilot program um on a report back on where we are at with the program. So you know projects that applied um what the response was um outreach that has occurred. Uh we just held a round table today with um affordable housing providers um to get their feedback. I think it was it was an excellent session, really really good debate and discussion. Um and also incorporating uh public comments that we received on parties that have commented and sort of sent us emails on you know largely just asking about different aspects of the largely probably around the gap financing. Um wanting to understand more about that um and certainly like I said we can talk about that today. Um, also on September 30th will be the trienal um, building code

update. Um, and uh, bringing back the two map corrections. The council had originally tabled these at their main meeting um, at 264430th Street and 1331 Wilshshire Boulevard. These were the map map corrections for what were residential zones or portions of commercial buildings. So that will be coming back to council. um uh from and then just additional information um in terms of department just community development updates um we're going through I would say as an organization with um under new leadership um kind of a period of realignment um across the organization um and it's a a moment um for us to to really pause and be strategic about thinking through you know how we proceed forward um around uh five strategic objectives ives um you know first being organizational health kind of making sure that we're building capacity within the organization um and also u making sure that we're focusing the efforts on the really important things you know to to bring um stability um to the organization. So, you know, one of the the big moves is that the economic development division um as part of this um uh realignment is u moving into the city manager's office um and under the leadership of Peter James who's our new deputy city manager. So, um that's something that uh is you know happening um or coming into fruition. So we wanted to provide you know that that update and you know community development will um continue to have planning um building uh and code enforcement um you know but I think as as we uh move forward there'll be um I think more uh information provided around um the city's game plan you know and how we move forward largely around the areas of public safety capital improvements um economic uh recovery and

opportunity and also kind of um you taking a look at how we deal with process streamlining around events and the like. But um yeah, I just wanted to share, you know, as you may have been reading, there's a lot of change, you know, that has been occurring and just providing some context to all of that. A question um is has there ever been any discussion about moving housing into planning? Um that has not been discussed. there's so much overlap between what we plan for housing and you know the housing element etc that

yeah certainly and I I think we work very closely with our colleagues um in housing and and human services you know so it's been I think it's a it's a pretty seamless relationship to be honest um you know in terms of the policy making and you know what happens on the implementation end um and the director's gone now right uh yes we are under recruitment for a new director of housing and human services and then my other question is who's going to do Ross' Uh [Laughter] is there any chance of backfilling his position? We Yes, we are. We will be doing that. Yes.

And then finally, um I know when the HPP and off-site program is discussed at council, there was some consternation about what am I doing? Some constrnation about it being an emergency, which I think could be justified based on all the state declarations of housing crisis, etc. Is the fact that we're looking at it tonight and it's going back to council on the 30th mean it's no longer like an emergency ICO. It's just an ICO. Yeah, I'm trying to recall how it's returning. Actually, I don't know if official can

I will say Susan Colola, the assistant city attorney will be here tonight um to talk a little bit more during the study session for AHPP. It's my understanding that it will come back as a first read and a second read. Um, but she can clarify that when that item comes on tonight. Thank you. So, I want to go to the 75 ft height high-rise. Is this citywide now or is this just for single stair buildings because this has been 25 years? No, it'll it would be a citywide change. That's a big deal that we've talked about and for you to I think what I heard you say was it was promoted by the fire chief and the building officials. Yeah.

I I mean I think the issue was raised. It was studied by the fire department, you know, and they they found that uh removing that high-rise limit, you know, would still it wouldn't it's it would not affect their ability to to still respond to any emergencies. versions of this commission have pushed for that for years, decades. Christopher Knight said that the only reason it was a 55 foot limit was that that was how high fire department ladders went back when they wrote the code. Things change. Anyways, that's

Go ahead, Jacob. Um, thanks. I I had a question on the approval of the um downtown business ordinance that we voted on. Um when it was presented to city council, there was what we voted on, but then there was also some amendments around pawn shops. I think um that caught me a bit off guard and the council actually then stripped that out. I I understand that we don't have to be presented, but what was how did it go from us not hearing about that to then council being presented with that? I'm not remembering whether it was but the when when interim zoning ordinances are amended it's not it is not required to be a formal recommendation of the planning commission um are an action of the council the extension of them um are so that's

yeah I guess unless you read the staff report very carefully it made it appear as if the whole thing was recommended by our commission whereas we did not go either way because it was presented to us on the issue of pawn shops downtown. So just for the future, I suppose. No, thank you for that.

One other very small paperwork thing. I've always loved our digital planning director's report so I don't have to frantically take notes while you speak. And I noticed and I always take a picture of it so if I forget something I can just and I noticed several of my commissioners also taking pictures of it. Maybe we could attach it to the public agenda and then everyone could have it just absolutely I don't think there'd be an issue. It's the most beautiful.

Any further questions? Okay. Well, I uh at this point, I'd like to invite our new city manager up to the podium. He's not here. He's not here. He's He's somewhere He's somewhere that may or may not have been referenced in the planning director's report. I can't speak more to that, but I do have a planning commissioner's announcement. Okay. Are we gonna go ahead and move on to the next? Okay, we'll move on to the next. Okay. Um, do we have any announcements from the uh planning commissioners?

Yeah. Uh, yesterday I attended the circular economy event that the city put on at the Annenburgg Community Beach House. It was excellent. Um, couple of takeaways that I think are relevant to us. The first is that our housing element did contain the request for innovative building materials and I had some deja vu relative to our conversation about adaptive reuse when we think about just how difficult it is um to salvage materials uh to encourage people to do it but it is happening on small scales. Um, I would like to suggest that we schedule, and she's open to this, uh, Shannon Perry, uh, who's our chief sustainable sustainability officer, for a presentation on the work that that her office is doing as it intersects with, um, with our with our work. uh because I I think there are some opportunities for us um to look at whether there are ways our zoning code could encourage the way that we use the zoning code to encourage adaptive reuse. Are there ways that our code could encourage um could encourage uh a more circular economy? And in particular, maybe we could communicate some recommendations to other bodies that look at building standards and and construction. Obviously, council just did the single story. Um, one thing that comes to mind is that as I complained yesterday, you know, any attempt on our part to bring some of these principles into the building process potentially could be challenged as a constraint on housing development and we need to try to get away from that kind of thinking. Um but there are probably some opportunities like

um kind of energy credits uh figuring out ways that that even inside um even inside the building envelope uh letting people uh get you know if they if they're if they're salvaging bricks give them some points that they could apply to something else. Um and you know I think it would be helpful to have that conversation with Shannon and um with all of us. So, it was an excellent conference. Thank you to the city team for putting it together and the I guess AIA was the other sponsor. They have some cool tech out there. Well, thank you, Leslie.

Uh, this is not a planning commission directly related issue, but um I'm actually having knee surgery on October 1st. So, I will be assuming I don't die on the table. I will be back in probably six weeks or so. And I was a little nervous because it's on Yamapour and I'm not sure if that is a good sign or a bad sign. Someone told me all it means is you don't have a Jewish doctor or the doctor will apologize if they do something. If I die, he'll apologize. So, I'll probably be out for about six weeks. I just wanted to let you know.

Okay. Um, I wanted to invite everybody to our public library this Saturday at 2 PM for the debut of the Mexican Presence in Santa Monica collection, which is a collection of photographs and videos that document the long-standing Mexican community in Santa Monica. And it will be a really great event. And you'll see videos and slideshows about the collection. and you'll get to meet a lot of the families who donated these incredible fellows. And what's the location of that? It is upstairs in the community room at the main library. Okay. Thank you.

Uh just a quick thank you to Ethan. Um if you notice at the bottom of the agenda now, there are two QR codes for the city's planning resources page and the uh page where you can subscribe to agendas on your email. Um and our email addresses now are on there as well. Um, so thanks for that addition and hopefully uh you can get the word out a little more. Are there any other announcements? Okay, I'm actually going to be absent on the October 15th meeting. Um, so am I. So now it's the four of you

three. Well, three three gone and four present. Okay, we're all Were the other 4B present on the 15th? Okay, I'm still standing. Um, mitigate those hazards. Should we Is is Mr. Chi on his way in? He is. Yeah, that was He just called. He'll be here in just a moment. He was coming from a neighborhood meeting.

Okay. Okay. Then what we'll do is we'll just we'll just move along and when he comes in we'll try to slot him in. How about that? Okay. Um if anyone here has a request to speak on an agenda item, it must be submitted on a speaker request form which we call a CHI and submitted to the commission secretary. All requests to address the commission on public hearing items must be submitted prior to the commission's consideration of the item. Do we have any uh public input on uh any matter not before? Okay. Any chits? None. Okay. Um then we can move on to the uh consent calendar. May I move I I I would like to express great appreciation for the fact that this cup is on the consent calendar. Uh thank you for doing that. There was some discussion about whether cups could be on the consent calendar. I'm thrilled to see it there. And with that enthusiasm, I move the consent calendar.

Second. Second. Good. Okay. And any any items any other items we want to remove from consent? No, but I'd like to make a comment. Okay. I'm on a campaign to get the city to stop using superscript ordinals in their documents because they're for math. They're not for English language numbers and it drives me nuts. It's a copy editing. Where where are their super everywhere? Everything I'm looking there's not an ordinal in there, but like even sixth cycle housing.

Yeah. It's like when you put the thick up high, that's it's like a mass thing. It took 20 years for the high-rise. Keep working. I'm gonna This is my new mission. my new highrise. You got it. All right. I just want to note I just want to note on the C uh we do need exparte disclosures on the 2001 bullshure item just because it's a judicial. Are there any exparte on item 7B? Okay. Any uh public comment on that item? Okay. Um sorry, just to Commissioner Fresco's point, I want to point out that the smaller th provides for more density and broadly we're in favor of density. So,

also Windows does it automatically, too. So, you know, because they don't speak English, they're mathematicians. All right, we're ready for roll call. Uh, we can just do a voice vote. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed. Pass the seven. Okay. Um, all right. The um the next item on our agenda is item 8A. It's the study session, the parks and rec vision plan. Sure. Yes, sir.

That question. I noticed that the that Miss Colola has arrived and we're going to be interrupting ourselves for um Mr. Chi and the study session is going to take quite a while. Would it make more sense for us to do 8B out of order? 8B um while she's here because it's faster. Well, it's up to you, but I just let me let me check one more time. What do we have an ETA yet? Speaking of take an early two, five minute break. He said a minute. Okay. I think he was he was on his way back. So, okay.

Do you guys want to just take a a break or do you want to jump right in? I'd like Okay, then we'll we'll skip ahead to item 8B, which is the AHP offsite incentive pilot program.

Yeah, this is uh I had an hour for this one. Okay. Evening, commission. Rachel Quac, environmental planner. I'm here tonight to present to you a summary of the off-site affordable housing pilot program. Um, so as you all aware, this pilot program was adopted on August 10th. This was in response to a council direction that was given in on June 10th. That council direction was to create a pilot program that would allow approved housing projects that are kind of stuck in this, you know, uh this this phase that haven't received the building permits to move out of that frozen phase and get their um get them shovels into ground. So um they wanted a program that would provide flexibility for these approved housing projects to move forward. Um basically uh this part of the program is consistent with housing element program 2C uh which called for a more flexible affordable housing production program options um to meet inclusionary require or to meet affordable housing requirements. So this pilot program, what it does is it does increase the flexibility for approved housing projects to locate their affordable housing units. Instead of locating it on-site, they now have the option to move it off site. They also have the option to pay an infee uh which I will talk about. And they also have an option um with the with it being located offsite, they also have flexibility in terms of timing. So in our traditional AHPPP program, we require that the affordable housing project be constructed uh prior to the park market

rate project. Uh now in this case, if uh under this program, the the market rate project could proceed first and then the off-site affordable housing project could follow within the next four months or sorry four years and with a 12-month extension. So, as you all know with uh with the state density bonus law, it does require that housing projects provide their affordable units on site in order to be eligible for local or for density bonus. And this program, we would create our own version of local density bonus, which is basically matching up with state what state density bonus law already provides. We're just basically giving them the same bonus even if they're providing their affordable units offsite. Um, pursuant to council direction that was given on August 10th, they wanted to limit this pilot program to the first 10,00 units or until September 30th, whichever comes first. And they directed staff to come back to council on September 30th after uh talking to affordable housing providers um which J mentioned we did today and I'll speak a little bit about that later on. Um just to give some background on why uh this program was um initiated by council or was directed by council. Um as you know the since the enactment of the HPP more than 12,200 affordable units have been produced and with our adoption of the six cycle housing elements um we've been very successful at approving housing projects. In fact we have about 4,000 units right now in the pipeline. And so we're more than u meeting our arena in terms of overall units. However, even though we've approved so many units um you know we've approved more than 3,400 units and 8 900 affordable units through ministerial process a lot of them just remain kind of stuck and in the stuck and meaning that they haven't proceeded to construction. Um you've all heard the news about how the residential

construction industry is facing significant economic challenges um with the tariffs. It's resulting in you know volatile construction material costs. There's high interest rates, stagnant rental rates. Um all these factors really have created a tough construction financing market for developers. So in looking at the data in terms of building permits issued for housing construction, you'll see this chart. It shows that, you know, in the last two years, there's been a significant plunge in the number of building permits that have been issued for multif family units. Um, this year there was only two. One was a three or two two or three unit project and the other was for a 100% affordable housing project. So, that kind of goes to show you just how dire the industry is. So just to step back of what our existing HPP program does um our existing HPP program is codified in chapter 9.64 and it provides three options. As you remember this planning commission through went through a number of changes in amending the HPP um when we did the housing element. Um, so if you're a housing project of two to five units, you could pay the affordable housing in Lou fee. And so that is about $40 per square foot or 50 if you're a condo project. However, if you're between six to 19 units, you could provide your units on site um 15% specifically. Um, and all of those have to be restricted to lower income. If you're a larger housing project of 20 units or more, you provide 15% on-site, but it's distributed across the very low, low, and moderate income categories. And this was done specifically so we could meet our arena targets. Um, it also has the off-site option. I will mention that, but the off-site option is for 20%, so it's a higher higher percentage of affordable housing. And all of those um are deeed restricted for lower income households so that they are eligible for

tax credit financing. So what this adopted um pilot program does is that it allows um multiple unit projects of six units or more that have been approved to opt into this voluntary program. Um so there was a cuto off date of August 12th, 2025. You have to have been uh an approved housing project as of that date which was the council date. And you cannot be under construction or have already been completed. We trying to get shovels in the ground here. So that means like if you're already done and you're completed, it doesn't apply to you. Um, and an important thing to know about this program is that we do have a number of projects that were entitled and approved, but they perhaps were entitled with only a 50% density bonus rather than with the 100% density bonus that AB1287 gave to projects. So, this program does allow you to does allow a project developer to come back, reapply for the project with a bigger project, and then they could still opt into this off-site affordable housing option. So, the pilot program gives three options to meet the AHPP um requirements. So, the first one is the alternative off-site uh option, which is you take your on-site units that we were previously approved for and now you're moving that offsite. You would pull it with other off-site units. Um, all these would be lower income so they could qualify for tax financing. Um, and and as I mentioned before, there is flexibility with the timing. Now the off-site affordable units can begin construct or sorry off the market rate project could begin construction before the off-site affordable units. In addition to that, this option does require the developer to pay a gap financing cost of approximately $150,000 per unit and we'll talk more about that later.

Option two is the rehabilitation option. Um this is when the developer could opt to rehabilitate existing units in a number in a number that's equivalent to what they were supposed to have provided on site. Um these units have to be deemed uninhabitable and council has to make these determination. There are specific facts um findings you have to make in order to deem it uninhabitable and you would have to have a rehabilitation plan in order to utilize this option. Um, frankly, we don't expect a whole lot of projects to be utilizing this option, but this does give um a second option should uh you know, we have units that are in dire shape or uninhabitable shape. Option three is the simplest which is the simply the paying in the Lou fee option. So, as you recall, our existing HPP allows uh projects of five units or less to pay the ENL fee. This program expands that option to all these approved projects. Basically, instead of providing the on-site units, they can now just pay the inloo fee of $43 per square foot for the apartments and $51 for condominiums. And these funds are deposited into the city's housing trust fund. Um, in terms of pro program benefits, um, I mentioned the local density bonus and so state density bonus law as I as I said requires that the on that affordable units be provided on site in order to get the density bonus. Now, with this program, we're giving you the bonus locally. So, you get the same bonus, same everything. Um, if you utilize this program, I also talked about the construction timing. Um, with option one, uh, they could construct a market rate project first and they have 48 months, which I will speak to later, to pull the building permit for the off-site affordable housing project. So, that could come later and lag behind. And with option three, which is the

inloo fee option, um by simply playing a fee, uh this reduces uncertainty for housing developers. So it's easier for them to get construction financing because of that. And again with I mentioned the pooling of the off-site, uh lower income units. Um with that, they're able to leverage tax credit for economies of scale. And so all the per the purpose of this entire program really is to help unlock frozen units and really get shovels in the ground. So because as we've seen before, you know, we're getting zero building permits being pulled right now and so we're trying to get these building permits um you know being issued and so that we actually get units online. So to talk into detail about the few the three options, option one is the alternative offsite uh location option. Uh this is how the process would work. Um, so the applicant, the developer would apply, they would get approved. Um, and before they could pull the building permit for the market rate project, they have to first identify the off-site location of the affordable units. And they have to enter into agreement with an affordable housing provider um to provide those units. Then they have to deposit gap financing cost $150,000 per unit into the escrow account. Then they begin the market reconstruction. And I mentioned the 40 48 months. They have 48 months within the of of the issuance of the building permit to cons begin construction of the affordable uh units offsite. And they're also allowed a 12-month extension, I should mention. And the affordable housing um the off-site affordable housing property must be owned in whole or in part by the affordable housing provider. Um, and this is something that's different than our normal HPP is that the affordable units that are provided offsite cannot include studios. Right now, we're seeing that it's very difficult to rent affordable units that are studios. And

so, this program would restrict um, you know, studios from being included in the pro in the off-site project. And they also must be destricted for 75 years as opposed to 55 years, which is what our current program requires. Coastal zone projects are given a slightly different timeline. And this is to account for the fact that developers might need to amend their coastal development permit. And so instead of the 48 months and with the 12-month extension, they are allowed to um pull they they have to construct within 18 months the affordable unit within 18 months of the coastal development permit amendment. uh they would have to construct affordable units and it's the same requirement that these affordable units cannot be include cannot be studios and they have to be drestricted for 75 years. So this is a graphic of how it would um work illustr um figuratively in in illustration form. Here you have on the left um their traditional AHPP program that we have. You have an approved housing project. That's 150 units. 15 of those units are onsite. Um as you can see on the right now those 15 units move offsite. And so they still get to keep the same project. It's still the 150 unit project, but now a fully market rate project and those 15 units are basically then transferred offsite and pulled with other affordable units from other market rate projects. Um this kind of scenario works best with developers that have lots of land and can pull their units together. Um we're unlikely going to see this kind of option utilized by small developers. Um just talking a little bit about the gap financing. Uh that gap financing is placed into uh interestbearing escrow account um before the issuance of the market rate uh project. And this assumes a tax credit and no requirement for

prevailing wage because you know with the with this being a developer affordable housing pro like this is not a city housing city affordable housing project. It is not subject to um prevailing wage requirements. And so that was that assumption. And if construction of the affordable units do does not commence within the 48 months and the one-year extension, um then the city can elect to receive the gap financing and the land where the offsite affordable was supposed to be. So there's been a lot of questions floating around about where this 150 came from. Um so this 150 thou $150,000 per unit was verified against um you know a review of the past six completed city funding affordable housing projects. Um this analysis took into account um took away I mean took into account escalation of 5% per year. um it subtracted the land acquisition costs uh and includes prevailing wage and in reviewing those and uh our housing division had come up with a range of somewhere between 99,000 to 240 per residence. So the 150 is kind of in line somewhere in the middle of it. Um the 150 is also what was determined after HRNA conducted a confidential perform analysis for a private um affordable housing developer or sorry prof private developer. Um they he looked at HRNA looked at um a development program that included a large R2 lot. These are the parameters shown here and that's where that 150 came from as well. So, as I mentioned, the 150 is generally consistent with other city project subsidies that doesn't include the land. Um, they found some modeling assumptions fairly aggressive. Uh, I'm not going to try to un tell you to speak to this

because some of the stuff I don't I don't really understand, but um but at the end of the day, HRNA concluded that the subsidy gap of uh of the gap financing cost should be somewhere in the range of 150 to 160. Uh so to go over a little bit of the option two on the substantial rehab option. Um this is the process of how it would go go. As I mentioned, council would need to determine whether or not those existing units are unhabitable. A rehabilitation plan would need to be approved. Uh relocation assistance would need to be provided to the tenants. And so there is a significant process that needs to happen um before the market rate construction can begin construction. And those rehab uh the rehab of those existing units have to be completed before the COO for the market rate project. And once they're rehabbed, those units have to be derestricted for 75 years. And lastly, the the inloo fee option um just requires the payment of the ENL fees before the building permit for the market rate project. The fee is based on uh the square footage cost uh or sorry square footage um of the market rate project. So you simply take the base fee which is the 43 or $44 I mentioned and multiply it by the floor area and that's how you get to the to the in fee. This fee is updated annually based on changes in construction and land costs. So I believe there's the inluff fee is due for update in October that will be coming council. Uh so we ran some quick numbers to kind of see what these enlies would look like for a range of projects. You could see um you know it really depends on the size of the of the market rate project but um these are some projects we took out the names and the addresses of them but that's what it would look like if you uh if we if they took advantage of the inland fees.

Um I mentioned that when council adopted this pilot program they limited to the 1000 units cap or uh September 30th whichever was first. So about two days, one or two days after the program was adopted, we did receive six applications. And so that pretty much capped us out. Um those six applications were for8 units. Um which includes 916 market rate units and 102 affordable units. Five of those applications chose the offsite option. And so same developer was able to pull their affordable units off site into two properties. And then the sixth application was for the inluff fee option and that was for a smaller project at 2906 Santa Monica Boulevard. You could actually track uh these projects and uh on our website we uh launched a website to track you know kind of the status of um these projects. So, if you go on this website and click on status of off-site HP, you should be able to see a map and details of what the of what each of these projects have in terms of units. Um, as I mentioned, we are returning to council on September 30th um with comments that uh we had received from affordable housing providers and um we will be asking some policy questions about whether or not they want to amend or extend the affordable housing pilot program. That's it.

There any questions, Lesie? Um, first I want to say I am thrilled with this program. I mean, I think it shows an amazing um leadership and creativity on the part of the city council and staff. I mean, I think it's really going to be very very helpful for the housing pipeline and I'm impressed. Um, I have and I support it 100%. Um, I do have some questions. Um, They're just sort of technical things. We talked today about the concessions are the same as the density bonus program. Correct. Correct. Does that apply to the affordable project and the market rate project? The affordable housing projects will also be eligible for regular state density bonus. So,

okay. So, so can they wave the bedroom thing? Could they like include studios even when we don't we don't want them to? You know, a lot Yeah. there the the way that the financing works I believe and Natalie is not here our housing manager but there are specific requirements in terms of bedroom mixes for achieving for getting the tax financing and so oh the studios are not good for tax credits I didn't know that I think that the uh if I'm not mistaken the ordinance does not allow studios in the affordable project isn't it yeah correct the concessions don't apply to the affordable project or just the bedroom mix

no it's because this is a voluntary incentive program like it doesn't change their base approval. This is they're volunteering to essentially choose an alternative project. One of the I'll just say the rules of the program is that the off-site affordable cannot have any studios in it. Okay, I got it. Okay. Um and then I have another concern and it's a good thing Oliver isn't here. Um the the the money from the inloo feeds will go into the famous housing trust fund. Correct. Yes. Correct.

Um and we know what can happen to housing trust funds. We've learned the hard way that those funds could be taken out to pay city debt and that is not good. So is is there any way we can make that not happen? Could that could those funds go into an escro account like option one money costly to do that? Um it is not possible. No, I mean I'm obviously this is a political decision. So uh and so I think there is a commitment to use this for affordable housing. I When we went to council, they were interested in using the money for some of the city owned sites and were contemplating development on city owned sites. So

that is in the was the housing trust fund ever paid back just out of curiosity. Not completely. Okay. Um hate to bring that up. Um, so basically, I mean, I had some real trouble with the four-year lag, but I' i've talked to a nonprofit today who said it could indeed take four years to get the 3% credits or or 4% credits, whatever. But if it doesn't, they'll start sooner. I mean, it doesn't mean they can't start for four years. They could maybe start in two or three. So, that gives them a window for realistic tax credit applications. That is correct. The four years was really to allow for any kind of hiccups in the application process.

Okay. And then Then if the developer picks option one, the developer puts the gap financing per unit in an escrow account in their name and the city's name. What about the land acquisition cost? Where does that go? So the land is land that they already own. So basically they have to prove that they have clean title and we you know so we're going to check all the title uh so that we can record restrictions on it uh before the building permit is issued for the market rate unit.

Okay. And then um I only have one or two more questions. Um there's an option agreement that's also recorded. So what happens is the option agreement and the covenants basically allow the city to pay $100 to get the land back if they don't perform. So that's what the option agreement does. Oh, cool. Um then why I understand that option one can't happen in the Pico neighborhood. Yes, that Well, all of these options can't happen. Options one and two because Why can't option two? Because there are a lot of rent burden low-income people living in multif family buildings in pico pico that could that benefit from this. Sorry, I want to clarify the affordable units can't go into that's what I mean. Well, obviously market rates not going into pico

only option one. No, the rehab units are No, there's no restriction on the on the rehab. It just makes all the sense in the world to do some kind of proactive thing in Pico. We've got rent burden people, low-income people. We're already doing that for Virginia. I'm sorry. We're already doing it for a Virginia Avenue project outside of this. We're we're providing loans. I know about the Virginia Avenue project, but but you can't go into Pico with rehab otherwise. No, you can. It's it's only option one where you can't you can't locate the affordable housing because they did not want to have

too many affordable housing projects in the Pico neighborhood. So, we did not deviate. It's already in the existing HP and we just that over. Um, and then who who this is the final question. Who selects the nonprofit partner? They do, but we get to have approval rights. Okay. So, they run it by you first. Yeah. And it's not hard to imagine who that would be or or the the universe it would be from had any No, the world the landscape is changing. So, I wouldn't say it's the the traditional I'm not saying CCSM. I mean, there are a lot of nonprofits out there. Interesting. Nonprofits. I know some of the developers have their house affordable.

I understand. And I was also hardened because when when Rachel and I talked today, I was worried about that everybody's going to pick the inlue fee option because it seemed like the cheapest way to go, but in reality, the five projects that have come in are actually going with the offsite, which is very reassuring. If you have the land, it's a better option, right? And it makes all the sense for a smaller, you know, one or two projects to go with the inloo fee. And we've now we've now extended the inluff fee option to everybody, which will also help. Well, thanks for your hard work. I'm really really impressed. Commissioner Fresco.

Um, thank you. Um, I couldn't help but notice that in your uh program status table that you showed us there that a lot of the the receiver site for three of the six projects is 1337th Street, which is a property that I believe is the one with the checkered past and is required to provide affordable units and a certain number of them have to be is that the one? No. Do you know which one I'm thinking of? Yes. Yeah. Okay. It's not that. Okay. I was just concerned. I didn't want this to erase past debts. Yes. Okay. Um All right.

1330 was the subject of a prior entitlement that a developer has pulled the entitlements and we're drawn. Right. There have been so many who that have come before all the addresses blur together. I just that one just jumped out and Seventh Street. I Yeah. Okay. Just making sure. I didn't want to make have this I want everything to all happen not things to take over from others. Um I was just curious about this rehab option. Um, and why first of all I want to know why city council would be the body to review and decide that seems kind of like a

it's actually a housing element requirement if we want to count those substantially rehabilitated units arena allocation because basically you have to show that you're adding new units and in order to do that you have to show that there basically can't be occupied. City council has to make a finding. You have to code enforcement out there. It's actually a very ownorous option, but you know, we had one property that actually fit the bill and it was appropriate because we wanted to use housing trust fund monies to provide the the loan assistance. So that's why

so I mean this is kind of going out into left field but because of my particular area of expertise I can think of historic buildings that may or may not qualify for landmark designation that people say are uninhabitable and that's why they have to be allowed to demolish them. And yeah, it's actually a technical definition and so they have to meet certain health and safety code violations which why code enforcement has to go out there. So, it's along the lines of plumbing, electrical, like serious, you know, roofing that's missing things things that would make these units unfit for occupancy. I see. Okay.

HD has specific requirements and they dictate all of these findings have to be made in order. So on a more technical basis getting into finance which is not even close to my area of expertise but um I know that the ideas to get shovels in the ground and you listed some of the things that are preventing that is the tariffs and materials costs and things you know and access to money and so forth. And it even it says in the report and you kind of intimated in your report that it's not 100% sure that this will result in shovels in the ground. So how would it I mean how would it help a developer because they are in fact developing more later so it's not cheaper. So you see what I'm saying? Well, what they're saying is I mean at least what we have been told and you know we believe there is some substance to it is that you can't get an equity partner to agree to provide a subsidy or um equity investment for a market rate project if you have to build an affordable housing project offsite which has no cap on what it is they would have to invest in. Right? So initially we started out with Well, you have to just build it and we have to figure out what that is. But in reality, the equity investor uh wants to know what is what is their what are they looking at as their total risk before they invest in the market rate project. So the compromise to that is to figure out as close as possible what it would cost for a 4% tax credit project now and then build in some escalation based upon the construction cost index. Put it an escro account, get interest on it, get the land, and you know, recognizing that

at the end of the day, we could not promise or guarantee that the units would be built. But it is still a cheaper option than having the city build them because when the city has to build them, it's like a million dollars a door versus what the developer has to pay. So, there's a significant, you know, efficiency in having p a private developer do this. But yes, I mean, I could not There's absolutely a guarantee that these units will be built. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Landris.

Um, thank you. I I also agree that this is a this is a great project. Um, I am curious to know whether there are more opportunities like this. Um, we have been trying to get moderate rate housing built Those tend to be smaller projects. Those tend to be hard to do because it's just one unit or, you know, two units relative to a given project. Is there any consideration of the possibility of expanding this to give uh developers opportunities to, you know, build moderate rate units through this program as well. They'd obviously not get the same kind of tax increment financing, but but

yeah, it's funny you should mention we actually had our affordable housing round table and one of the housing providers did mention that, you know, like if they wanted the opportunity to build workforce housing perhaps, you know, they wanted more options. So certainly it is up to council's discretion to expand this program to include that and so yeah, they would and we would be taking that comment and feedback to them so that they are aware. But that that was the comment that we heard today. And then um the affordable housing provider, it can be a for-profit affordable housing provider as well, right? For-profit or nonprofit. The lists are still controlled by the city, right? You're talking about the tenant list. Yeah. Yes.

Okay. Yeah. So, that policy hasn't changed, right? Okay. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Choco. Thank you. Some of my questions have been answered, but I still have a few. Um, I'm intrigued by because my impression too was that option three would be the easiest, but I'm intrigued by the fact that some of the participants have been choosing option one. I'm curious about how that works. I think you touched on that a little bit because my impression and I'd also maybe part two of that is

I'm curious if there's an estimate of what the inloo fee amounts to in terms of a percentage of actual costs. So the ones that were able to utilize option one is typically a common land owner. So it was a developer that have have a lot of land. Now what was your second question? The second question is in terms of if you compare the cost if you compare the cost between option one to option three one would think that option three would be the cheaper option

except that you have to lay out cash. I think for the developers that utilize option one they already have banked the land. So it's really just putting out less cash in the form of gap financing. And for option three, this is based on a nexus study that was done in 2006. And then every year, um there is a cost escalation based on um median condo value increases in the city as well as construction construction cost escalation. And so every year we up that fee based on whatever the actual numbers are that come in.

So So I guess my question was really about the original Nexus study. Was that intended to actually recover 100% of the cost of the unit or was it some some adjusted amount below the actual cost? I think it was intended to recover the cost. It Yeah. So, uh, but at the same time, I think from some of the conversation I've heard so far, we aren't expecting that the inloo fee would actually be the equivalent of getting a unit. It's likely to end up with less units, right? Yeah. I mean, yeah, I mean, you know, I think it depends. Yes. In the in the,

you know, if the city were to have to build it and these units are more expensive, yes, we probably get less units than if private developer built them under option one. I I think if the question is whether like the in the collection the inloo fee is equivalent like is sufficient need to actually construct the number of units like no answer is no. It would still need in order to to number one it have to be on land assuming it's on city own land you know it likely would need some city potentially

that was the actual intent originally option it could be used on city own microphone up I can't hear so related to your last point do are there in fact city owned pieces of land that are ready to go, waiting for potential funding to put units on that could really substantially benefit from this. Well, we have uh made a commitment in the housing element to develop city-owned sites for affordable housing.

Um, couple of more questions. Uh there was a mention somewhere in the staff report about measure GH as one of the the reasons that's been touted as what's causing problems with proceeding with housing projects. Um I'm curious whether as part of all of this consideration there's been any thought into whether something can be done on that end with regard to providing a more substantial sort of getting at the root cause of some of the delays uh from the standpoint of the fact that I think the intent of that measure was actually to benefit housing as well. Right.

Right. It's it's it's an initiative. So the answer is we don't have any the wouldn't have any control unless it were to put like another ballot measure. So, for example, if there was intended to be some other exceptions, for example, that would involve a ballot measure as well.

I did have one more, but I you can come back to me if you like. Okay. Any other questions on this side? Okay, Commissioner Reese. Yeah. Did I hear the off? First of all, I appreciate the uniqueness of the program and trying to get this off the ground because obviously there's problem all over trying to get bu projects built. If I'm going offsite, if I'm consolidating all my affordable offsite, did I hear that that site can ask for a density bonus and are they going to use those same affordable units to qualify? So, they're really They're getting it's a local it's a local bonus.

So they're getting a double bonus though basically. But well that explains probably why they're gravitating towards it. Okay. Um I mean that's a big that's a big give. The next one that I want to ask is the four years. So four years they have to pull a building permit. Before we leave that point though, you know, it's a 100% affordable housing project. So, if they get like a double bonus, you're getting double the amount of affordable units,

but they're using a set aside that was already committed to something else to get those increase. So, we're not really we're not, in my mind, we're not increasing the density. You're taking the density from one site that they used to double that site. They're using those affordable and moving it over to the other site, right? And now they're using that as a set aside. So they can now d 100% bonus that site. We're not getting as much affordable if they were built in anybody for that entire project would have to be affordable 100% affordable.

Okay. But in my mind, I still haven't seen that we're we're losing out on some affordable. But hey, if we get if nothing a percent of zero is better than nothing. Okay. But it is a big it is a big give. Okay. So then the four years they have to pull a building permit and then if they don't perform I heard they have to give back the gap financing and the the land. It's in a escrow account. So basically, we would have the right to just draw in the escrow account and exercise our option on the land. So now we're the land owners. Now we're the land owners.

We're banking that land, hoping we get enough money to build the affordable. Correct. Okay. I hope we don't become land owners. Thank you. Go back to you, Commissioner.

Great. Thanks. Thanks for that last question because I think that helps me understand a little bit better with regard to option one. But just to clarify then if someone has if a participant has gotten a density bonus on one site and they opt into the program they get to keep the density bonus for market rate on that existing site. So that's an incentive. then they get to transfer those units to another site and get a density bonus there using those same units towards that density that density bonus on that second site. So the first project keeps the original density bonus,

right? Or the local bonus and then the offsite also gets its own bonus based on whatever they're providing in terms of affordable units. So they have to provide So they have to provide additional affordable units over and above the ones that were transferred from the first. Sorry, that's not what I just heard. Yeah, that's Yeah, it's not exactly that. I think uh I think you were correct, but they would get the density bonus. They're basically transferring that 15 of the 100 there to the other site. Right. Right.

So they get the bonus in the form of those 15 are now to be market rate. They get a density bonus on top of that for the market rate and then for the offsite they would that would satisfy the requirement for them to get a bonus on the offsite. So they do get a double bonus. Yeah, it's like it's a very significant incentive. Yes, it's definitely incentive to get them to do it. True. Understood. when you say about they get a double bonus, the the the offsite is going to be owned and operated by an affordable housing developer.

So, it's not like the developer himself or herself is getting the double bonus. The city gets the double bonus. The project will each project we get the 100% affordable housing project. Yeah. The affordable housing developer can build a high more dense higher project. So the second site can't be owned by the original developer that participate in the program. No to be you know a housing provider that we approve. Yeah. Understood. Okay. I do have a couple of more questions. Okay.

Uh regarding the second option, um the property that gets rehabilitated does not have to be a city-owned property or a nonprofit owned property. It could be. So in other words, the participant in the program would have to acquire these these or enter into a deal with someone else who needs it. Yeah. I see. And so the owner of those rehabed units would also benefit from this program. Correct.

Okay. I want to revisit the the the question about how this will unstick stuck projects. I I understand I understand the the need and I like I like the proposal. I understand kind of the concept of it, but I'd like to better understand how the city expects to unstick market rate projects with this uh with with what this change is proposing. way it has because we have the six applications. So, you know, if they pull building permits, that's unsticking it at least from where it was before, right?

Um, and it is I mean, right now it is a pilot program. Whether council chooses to extend it or not is still a question. Yeah, I guess I guess see a lot of a lot of market rate projects outside of Santa Monica that are also stuck and for reasons that are outside of any kind of you know inluff fee. Um was there something specific about these deals that let them unstick those projects and move forward with this and fee being paid? Well, we have the developer here but I think the real uh unsticking point is the fact that they had landbanked.

Okay. So, um, okay. So, they own they own the land. So, they were able to basically have the the investment they had made in the land count towards this fee. And so, they're essentially bringing the land like a zero cost. Okay. Cost. Okay. Was was this program crafted with a specific kind of development plan in mind or was it meant to be broadly accessed by all developers?

Understanding the politics of this, we limited it intentionally to projects that were stuck, right? Any new projects. So that's that's how it is now. If council to unleash that this option for any other developers. That's totally up to them. Yeah. For for broad understanding, it's the to qualify, you have to be any project that was approved before August 12th and the entitlement is still active. So, it can't be a debt entitlement. It cannot be something that's under construction, okay?

Or received its building permit. Um, and that represents it's roughly like 40 or so projects representing about 4,000 units is the universe of what we're talking about.

Okay. Yeah. Because you do put yourself at higher risk when you have a 48month clock ticking on an affordable housing site. you would think the inloop fee would be the easier, riskier, lower price option, which also led me to, you know, when I first read this, um, the housing trust fund kept coming back to mind because it seemed like a really logical way for the city to unstick projects and also then replenish the housing trust fund at the same time. Um, can we just have a brief sidebar on the housing trust fund because I I'm surprised I think a lot of us are surprised that they ch they chose the other option and not the fee.

It's because they own the land already. Yeah. So, they already had some cost in the site. Do we have a sense of what what is in the housing trust fund today? Well, we do have a sense. We have actual numbers but unfortunately I don't have them at hand. We do have to do a report usually before the end of the year to uh identify how much money we have in there. How much is committed which is uncommitted? How much hasn't been spent over the last x number of years. So we that report is published every year. There was one for last year um and another one coming soon. Okay. Okay.

Thanks. Um could you pull up the um applicants? Um so just were the first five a single developer? First five are by the same developer. Yes. Okay. Yeah. So I think the discussion of choices it's just one developer made that choice. Another developer made the other choice. Um excuse me. Um, were there any other applicants that or um developers that you know of that wanted this but didn't get it in in time?

Not that we're aware of. Um, I think because this program was so new it wasn't even we tried broadcasting and we sent out a Mailchimp and you know announcements but you know within two days it you know got capped. So but now that we're aware of also you'd have to hold vacant property. Right.

Right. Right. Right. Um do you get a sense that this is I mean maybe not with respect to this particular developer but like if this were to move forward this would just be a necessary step that the lend uh the equity partner would make every developer go through because it's cheaper in various ways or that this is really the like notch that's unsticking makes the project feasible. I don't know. I I don't think I can speculate about that, but we do have the developers represented.

Wait, wait for public comment. Um, is there any potential that like they could come to some multiple developers could come to some deal where one would supply the land um but then the other could pay half the value of the land or something like that. So, multiple different developers could go in on option one. I mean, they could certainly do that. does not preclude that. It would be up to them. But as long as they have clear title and we can record the option agreement and the covenants but only one of the developers would have the title. Could another one kind of get in there?

You have no idea how you know ownership can happen. But in any event, as long as we have clear access to title, that's um and then the the 150k, again, maybe you haven't thought about this because this is just a pilot that has already filled up, but is there a provision that it would uh go up in the same way that the in Luffy does, it would be escalated based on factors. Yeah. Yeah. the escalation starts um what is it is like by the effective date of the ordinance right like the in terms of the clock starting on when an index there's a maximum percentage

yeah I mean you make a good point and I think we will take a closer look at that because you know this was intended as a pilot program but yeah um and then just two quick questions on just the existing um HPP um if you do a condo conversion of a rental unit. Do you have to top up the fee to the condo rate? Condo conversion, you have to jump through an awful lot of hoops to get there. So, uh, I'd have to look at that.

Um, and then I'm I'm looking in the staff report. This was brought to my attention. the for the area that you use to calculate the inloo fee is not the definition of habitable area that's used elsewhere in the code because it includes like some covered park covered parking spaces indoor courtyards why why is that different than the ordinary definition of a habitable area well it's the strict definition of floor area which we've been using in the AHP so That has not changed. And the floor area definition is it's a technical definition, right? But is this particular definition used anywhere else other than AHPP?

Okay. Yeah, it's a standard definition. Oh, that's it. Okay. There are no further questions. We do have a late chit. Okay. You have one more question, Commissioner Lambert. Two quick ones. Okay. Um, has HCD been queried about this novel approach and do you know if they they're fine with it? Yeah, we spoke to them and they said as long as the intent of the Well, that's wonderful because that's an unusual Well, we built it into the housing element. So,

Oh, right. Okay. The other one I'm I'm concerned about this density bonus issue. And let me see how tell you how I see it. If if there's an affordable housing site, that affordable housing site is completely under the control of a nonprofit or an affordable housing provider and they they're entitled under state law to a density bonus themselves. They can go 33 additional feet on that affordable housing project. Why would they be okay with the market rate developer coming in and adding market rate units on top of project they control? I mean, is that even a feasible scenario? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. Yeah, I think that's I think what we were saying is that 15 those 15 units which would have been in the market rate unit that is now going to be used to satisfy

No, I understand. Yeah, but that there's no market rate units in the off. Well, what some people are worried about is the market rate guys are going to come in and add market rate units on top of the affordable housing project because No, that's not what you were saying. I don't think that's okay. Then I totally understand. I apologize. Could be an affordable housing density bonus. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Choco.

Yeah. One last question. Uh just so I can understand the you know the concern about concentration. I think you mentioned that uh this program particularly option one can't result in placement of units in the Pico neighborhood. Is that a definition that essentially covers all areas where there is a concern for concentration? There's an actual definition in our HP. It's called the affordable housing prohibition area. There's a map um and it does include the Pico neighborhood and there's defined boundaries.

I see that concludes our questions. We do have uh two late chits that came in on item 8B. Um can I get a vote to accept the late chit? Yeah, I'm going to move for two minutes because we did some agenda management and they may not have been aware that we were moving so quickly. So I'm going to move for two minutes.

All those in favor say I. I. Okay, the first person on our list is Mr. Dave Rand.

Good evening, commissioners. Dave Rand. I'm a land use attorney. My firm Rand Pastor Nelson uh has worked on most of the housing entitled projects that are pending in the city that you've heard are um fully entitled but yet not advancing to building permit. Definitely not getting under construction. Um I've worked in this city for 15 years now thereabouts. Um, I think this is actually the most important thing that I've been involved with this particular ordinance to the extent it's it's extended um when it comes to housing production because there is no one single thing that the city can do or has done in my view um to unlock to use the term that's being used over and multiple times tonight so many units with one false swoop. Uh, and tremendous credit to your staff and the city attorney's office for rolling up their sleeves and getting incredibly creative. A lot of cities do housing elements. A lot of cities approve housing projects. A lot of cities have done upzoning. A lot of cities are prohousing. This is the most sort of concerted and creative effort I've been involved in at the local level where folks um at, you know, the council and the staff have worked with the development community to try to actually figure out how to make the projects work. I'm incredibly bullish about the prospects of success of this program. I saw it as soon as the thing was announced. We had 930 of the thousand units um secured and accounted for within a day. I have multiple clients who are very much hoping that this program gets extended who will use it both option one and option three. Um, Cypress Equity Investments is the developer that took up the first five projects, Commissioner Rossman, that you mentioned. There are at least two other developers that have multiple properties

in the city who have the opportunity to potentially leverage option one, and there are many more that are looking seriously at the Inloo fee and I hope it goes forward. Thank you. There any questions? Okay. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Devon Ray Morgan.

How you guys doing today?

Good, thank you. Um uh I came up here like the last couple weeks and uh I spoke up and I was telling you guys that um I was the director of finance for some companies or they were using my name as director of finance. Um I have a company called A1 Auction. I was telling you guys what I do is I buy and sell sports collectibles, painting plaques and jewelry. And what I do is I donate 3 to 5% to Carrie Davis Foundation for people that need low income housing. The reason I did that was because the people in the city, they don't respect the people that's homeless right here. Because if they did, they would have a bathroom open or they wouldn't they would have water out there. They would have something that show that they respected the people that they here to take care of. So, um yeah, that's why I started um Carrie Davis Foundation and um I can definitely provide for myself. I don't uh you they didn't want to give me a grant here, so I started selling my own sports cards. That's what I do. So, uh, like I said, like right here, this is a LeBron James high school jersey. It's game worn. It's his all-American jersey with his rookie, his pro rookie, and his high school rookie. Behind that, I have a Jackie Robinson and a Jackie Robinson rookie and an autograph Kobe and his rookie. So, um, there was no way ever that somebody was going to contact a person like that that has everything going to even asked him if he wanted to do anything. So, um yeah, if if uh if there's a chance uh if a person can speak up on the things that can get developed here, then I'm willing to listen. But if not, if a person can't have a say so and don't know where the money's going, I I couldn't take that route. So, um, it would be nice for somebody to actually contact somebody and let them know what's going on instead of just using whatever he has to get everything accomplished. But I

appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, with that, I think we can conclude our study session. Sure. Can I just ask, are we supposed to make recommendations to council? We um a formal recommendation from the commission on this item isn't necessary. Um however, the commission always has the option to, you know, for example, appoint the chair to write a letter to represent the commission's position. Any individual commissioner could attend the council meeting. Um you have any variety of, you know, options. Um but a formal recommendation is not necessary.

Okay. I I just think it would be helpful because I I would imagine you're going to mention that this came to us. Um so I think it would be really helpful to mention that we were broadly in favor of it and uh you know excited by the possibilities. Um you know we did this with cars in the downtown when we allowed uh all those parking structures to satisfy parking requirements on individual properties. I think people are more important than cars. So I'm glad we're doing this. Um, but I do think if there were particular tweaks that people wanted, uh, it would be worth kind of just listing them out real fairly quickly so that they can go into the staff report. I would love to see I would love to see that moderate rate uh, piece be explored for myself. Um, that would be the only thing I would add.

Can I ask you a quick question? How so where is this now with council? How far along are they and Has this been finalized or

I mean so they they adopted the program initially on August 12th with effectively like a one month you know with a termination of September 30th and direction to return back on the 30th and then with the thousand unit caps. It was essentially just really a true pilot like let's see what happens and let's talk about it more on the 30th. Um you know the ordinance is is written and it's attached to the agenda. Um, in terms of the posting of that, you know, it'll be posted next week. So, we, you know, going back to the council, we'll report back on the results of the program, the results, um, of outreach. um and kind of I think presenting council policy considerations or just things that they can consider just because this this whole program you know they have a tremendous amount of policy discretion you know as to um what they want to do with it and you know really using the public the outreach the comments like for example from the affordable housing round table that occurred today you know to identify um some areas that we heard the council you know to consider in what happens next with the program.

Josh, yes,

I think um a letter from the chair of the planning commission would be really appropriate. Um I actually wrote a letter as a resident, not as a planning commissioner at the last hearing. I can send that to you if you want. Um but I think I think we should go on record as a planning commission approving this project. I'd like to say that I think while I'm I'm broadly in favor of the program, I like it primarily as a pilot program and I think the idea of it being extended periodically for defined periods of time with monitoring of progress is a crucial part of it and I have potential concerns of it just becoming a permanent program that may end up with unintended consequences. If I may, I think and I and I I hear that concern. I think the the flip side is that we stick to the the states program and without a robust housing trust fund, it would those projects would kind of revert to form. So, this is an inr run around the the bottleneck that's caused by there not being enough money in the housing trust fund to fund projects through the state density bonus program. If I'm not if I'm thinking about this correctly,

I was just talking, but I mean I I I agree that this is a this is useful as a scalpel, right? It's not a This is a This is a tool. I could see I could see council um noticing as it did, right, that we're not putting affordable in Pico. Are we would we want to target particular areas of town for where the where these projects are going? I don't know where the land is that is owned that's been banked by different developers, but um I think given where we are broadly with housing construction, uh it would be appropriate to extend this at the very least through the end of the current housing element, for example, um and allow it to sunset at that point and then allow whatever you know as the h the next housing element is be is developed. then look at the successes of the program and say okay how do we want to tweak it for the next housing for the next housing element we also don't right don't know what the you know what state housing law is going to look like at that point so I I agree with you in the sense that we don't want to make it so permanent that you know we reverse decades of progress on inclusionary housing right um but we also don't want to make it so um ownorous on council and and staff that we're coming back and tweaking it every three months.

Um I mean I I think is I mean there's a pretty clear delineation of what projects are eligible and they're the ones in the pipeline. It's about four a little more than 4,000 units. I wouldn't want to see the city council limited to any less than that. I mean let's just get the pipeline through, see what happens, how does it go, and we'll plan from there. Great.

Okay. I I'm going to say my normal uh comment u but I always say when we talk about affordable housing in the Pico neighborhood and while I understand uh the historic concentration of affordable housing in the Pico neighborhood, I also want to say that affordable housing is actually a net positive for the city no matter where it goes. And um and and the um what what I what I want to push back on is that affordable housing uh when when we exclude it from a certain neighborhood, what we're what we're saying is that it there's a negative connotation that we're trying to protect that neighborhood from uh by keeping affordable housing from it. Um, I think affordable housing needs to be distributed throughout the city of Santa Monica. And you know, while I understand there is a concentration in Pico neighborhood, I want to eventually get us past that where Pico neighborhood is open for affordable housing. We have a lot of families that live there uh that have uh children and and parents who can't afford uh to to live in their neighborhood. and by increasing the supply of affordable housing, we let them stay in the Pico neighborhood. So, um I just don't want to lose sight of that.

I would like to add just beyond that comment, it also happens to be near jobs. That's right. And rents are actually very very high in Pico neighborhood. So, they're not affordable. Um so um you know I think we need to start to change the dialogue. Um

well I I think there are two things that need to be said about that. Number one, yes. And HCD had some very choice words for us when it comes to the distribution of housing in Santa Monica. So until such time as we can actually make a def a legally defensible case, I understand the rationale for for the for the city's restriction here. I I I'm I don't disagree with anything you've said. I think affordable housing is a net positive wherever it is. That doesn't change what happened with the housing element and what we had to do to deal with it. However, and I think uh the other point is, you know, I'm thinking about the way we were trying to encourage um congregations with large totally depreciated parking lots that were doing nothing to build affordable housing and we gave them a lot of leeway to do it. I, you know, I would be and and a lot of those are, you know, they're all over the city. Um, I would love to see the program tweaked, for example, to figure out ways to streamline that. Right. And that's a and that's an example actually to your point, Commissioner Lambert, of we have a voluntary we have a voluntary overlay on moderate rate that gives some flexibility to the congregations so that they can they don't have to they can lease to who they want to, right? And it's a market rate and it's a combination. So, if there were a way to work it out, that might be Rachel to the moderate conversation. Maybe there's a way to work it out to allow developers to meet moderate uh requirements in collaboration with congregations that have parking lots and the congregations may not want to release the parking lots, you know, the ground lease, but there might be a solution there. Um, and that could happen maybe if it's moderate

rate, that could happen anywhere in the city. I'm just looking for a, you know, an incremental next step as opposed to a, you know, um, big next step.

I I want to I want to conclude our conversation on this item um, and move on to the on to 8B. But before we do, um, I am in support of a letter coming uh, from the planning commission. I think um, we need to better understand what the conversation was with the affordable housing providers. I'd like to be able to incorporate some of that into the letter. Um because what I what I think we're going to be writing a letter about is asking the city to continue this after September 30th. And um I think we should be able to give some constructive uh feedback about how to make it better September 30th going forward. And so I think if we can get more information about what our affordable housing providers gave us today, that would be helpful. Yeah, we could send a summary tomorrow. Um, we're working up a summary since this is held today.

Okay. So, I'll move that we um uh appoint I don't Can we do this? Um, and it's not noticed. Can we appoint the commissioner H chair Hamilton and commissioner Lambert to be an ad hoc committee of two um to consult with the chair so the chair can write a letter that incorporates the the comments and recommendations that were made here that's before my surgery so that should work. Yeah, as long as we can meet over Zoom. Well, no, just the two of you and we're just going to leave it with you. I just want to make sure that fine

that my comments about moderate rate in the congregations are incorporated and maybe extending to the housing element deadline. Commissioner Choco's concerns about not overly expanding uh obviously your concerns about making sure that this is as equitable and a broad-based as possible but um you know that would be my motion that incorporates these and also an emphasis on monitoring progress. Yeah. You want a second? I taken it. Okay. So, I think I think we're ready to conclude. Um, and shall we vote to conclude this discussion? Oh, sorry. I'm still working at the kinks here. Yeah, just a voice. Um, all those in favor say I. I.

You know, I'm going to take off. I'm less spaced, but my knee hurts. So, I'll see you guys in November, hopefully. Thanks. Okay.

Okay. We can now go back in time to uh item 8A. We we did lose the city. Yeah, he had to go to another meeting. Um he's very apologetic. Um he wasn't able to make it tonight, but uh we will schedule him on a future agenda. Okay. of us are here. I'd like to invite staff to present.

Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for having me, city staff, members of the public. Uh once again, my name is Tony Lopez. I'm the city's senior park planner within public works, and I'm here today to present on the 2025 parks and recreation vision plan update. So, in short, we did it. Um this process started quite a long time ago uh before I even began with the city last April. Um the process to update the 1997 parks and recreation master plan began in 2018 with uh several rounds of community outreach. Uh the intent was that in 2019 and 2020 a revised updated parks and recreation master plan would be presented uh for adoption. Unfortunately, in March of 2020, that's when the update was set to be presented. The COVID pandemic hit. The project was put on hold and eventually uh didn't get picked up again until I was brought on board in April 2024 to bring it to the finish line. Who uses the parks and recreation vision plan? The community uses it to identify open space opportunities that exist within their neighborhoods. Planners use it to evaluate the potential to amplify complete neighborhoods. Architects and consultants use it to create comprehensive design solutions that integrate the benefits of open space. And boards and comm commissions use it to evaluate and calibrate the impacts of development on the carrying capacity of our parks. In 2024, in sorry, in fall of 2024 when we began the update once again, uh the goal was user friendliness. What we wanted to make sure was that this document was very easy for the community to understand so that that anyone could pick up this document and use it to their benefit because when it comes to uh for example applications for grants, not only the city has the

ability to apply for those grants but the community 501c3s, we wanted this document to be a resource for them. So having the ability to make sure it was very comprehensive and give them the tools to write successful applications was one of our goals. The document is set up with an introduction simply what is the parks and recreation vision plan. It's set up in four chapters vision and network. Vision and network looks at a overall park inventory. What do we have in our parks? Community voices uh is a summary of the 2018 and 19 outreach and also explains the 2025 outreach conducted as part of this process. Chapter three actions looks at all the actions and recommendations that we will utilize to achieve the vision of the of this plan and implementation looks at moving forward. What do we do with the plan? We have a conclusion and appendices that look to support the overall plan providing additional information for the community. Companion narratives are also sprinkled throughout the plan to help elevate particular boards, commissions, and other community groups that have uh a stake in our parks and recreation network. I want to point out within the appendices some uh those are the actions matrix which is sorry there's some echo feedback. The actions matrix is simply a a very simplified list of all the actions and recommendations. Appendix B is the existing conditions and amenities and components action matrix which looks at all of the amenities and components within our park network and establishes five, 10, and 20 year work plans to address maintenance. Appendix C is the community recreation and arts needs assessment survey feedback. Appendix D, potential funding, looks at all of our various funding resources.

E is sighting criteria. We looked at particular amenities within our network to help define the necessary components that would go into a successful implementation. Open space history looks at a comprehensive look at where our park network has been. The airport conversion report is included as part of the appendix because when this project was initially underway in 2018, it was part of the overall scope of that project. And finally, related plans and documents. This provides the community with the a comprehensive list of all the associated plans and documents that might influence any work associated with a park and open space network. So what is the vision? City has habitat a vision for nourishing habitat for people, plants, animals and program continuing the city's commitment and striving to prevent harm to the natural environment and human health. A vision that addresses community open space need through acquisition, expansion, and improvements, enhancing resilience, and reinforcing sustainability initiatives. The 1997 plan's vision was city as park. This city as habitat idea is not anything new. I want to read a snip from the open space elements. Parks and open spaces provide vital opportunities for recreation, relaxation, and contemplation as well as habitat. This vision is the next step in the evolution of our parks network. Some of the goals to enable open space to grow with our city. We heard earlier today about how we want to advance the growth of our city and we want to be able to grow our park network in concert with that. We want to position the city to respond quickly and responsibly to opportunities that enhance our parks and as settings for habitat. We want to act in support of water self-sufficiency, zero waste, and carbon neutrality. We

want to maintain open dialogue with the community on nature advocacy and we want to reaffirm the sustainable rights ordinance. Just a bit of a network refresher. There were a lot of different numbers quantities associated with our park network in the various plans. Now, a lot of uh our adopted plans and initiatives are came online at different dates. So what we wanted really wanted to do with this 2025 plan was create a hub for all that information. Our overall network is approximately 144 acres. That equates to roughly 1.55 acres per 10,000 residents based on our 2020 census data. In 2016, LA County conducted a regional parks and recreation needs assessment that told us that the county average the average is 3.3 park acres per 10,000 residents. In 2022, the county conducted a needs assessment plus which looked more closely at rural and recreational regional need. Most notably, the Pico neighborhood within Santa Monica has a one indicator classification for additional regional recreation need. Looking forward from 144, this vision champions increased biodiversity, urban forest, methods to combat climate change, open space to serve growing need, education, cultural, recreational, art, spaces, and supporting program through acquisition, expansion, improvements, and partnerships. Chapter one, vision and network, looks at again a park inventory. This particular chapter notes all of our parks and all of our existing amenities, notes quantity and the ability for any of our parks to take on additional existing amenity typologies. This particular chapter also has narratives associated with all the neighborhood groups. Part of the

outreach of this process was to speak to those neighborhood groups and understand what their particular needs are. with the understanding that they are the ones who live in these neighborhoods and know exactly what they need. Chapter 2, Community Voices, again recaps the 2018 and 19 outreach. We did not want to dismiss the efforts from that time. We wanted to lean on that information and use that as a jumping off point. From that analysis, we understood that there was a missing piece in the puzzle, which is why we conducted the 2025 community recreation arts needs assessment. That assessment told us how many park acreage, how many park acres we need and how many types of amenities we need based on our current inventory. It also told us that the city of Santa Monica needs more parks, needs more amenities, but the city loves the network program. 96% of respondents to that survey visit a parks, arts, and recreation facility in a typical year. The national average is 81%. 49% of respondents participate in a city program or event in a typical year with the national average being 36%. Some top priorities based on this assessment are walking loops and trails, community parks, a large regional park, neighborhood parks, an aquatics facility, pocket parks, and more community gardens. So the question before us today, the 1997 plan recommended a targeted growth of park acreage from 112.7 acres to a range of 143.8 to 170 acres. As I mentioned, we currently stand at approximately 144. So we just met that goal from 1997. So what goal does the community want to establish for this plan related to the future growth of the city's park acreage and park amenities?

We have the data, but I cannot be the one to say exactly what that acreage is, which is why we're conducting this other final leg of outreach to understand what the community feels is the best approach for the next 20 to 25 years. Some considerations when figuring when determining what that number might be. Again, the city of Santa Monica is 1.55 park acres per 10,00 residents. The county assessment conducted in 2016 classifies the city of Santa Monica as moderate in terms of park acreage need. Now that classification is based on total acreage plus population and distance to parks. One thing to note is that our neighboring cities are all high or very high need with no more than one park acre per 10,00 residents. Again, the county average is 3.3 park acres per 10,00. And that's just an average. It's not a recommendation. Common planning standards is about five park acres per 10,00 residents. In 2025, the National Reck and Parks Association recommended about six to 10 park acres per 10,000 residents. And that's based on a city population of about 100,000 to 250,000 people. It's important to note that in our 2020 census, we were about 93,000 residents, but based on our city website, we receive about a 250,000 daytime population with visitors and those coming into our city. It's also important to note that the county does not include beach acreage because as part of that assessment, not every city within the county has a beach. However, the National Recreck and Park Association does include the beach. So we want to be considerate of how we balance those numbers accordingly. So that for example, understanding that our beach acreage will add approximately uh 2.17 additional acres per 10,00 that

might be something we want to keep in our back pocket when we determine an average park acres per 10,00 so that when we add that back onto it we're right in that sweet spot of the NRPA recommendation. In the community recreation arts appendix, you'll notice that there was a a datam that was used as a baseline to understand what exactly our park acreage need is and what we do need to do to get to that point. We utilize the the county average just as a baseline to understand where our numbers sit. To meet the county average, we need an additional 134 park acres on top of our 144 5-year projected population growth. we will need an additional 165 acres. Now, if we utilize standard planning principles of five park acres for 10,00 we will need, sorry, I'll look at this one 292 additional acres and an additional 338 acres with a five-year projection. Now, my recommendation based on all this all these considerations is that we want to target a number beyond the foreseeable future that aligns with the city's priorities and initiatives. Recommendation is to exceed the average because I don't think in the history of Santa Monica we've ever felt that we are average. We want to look beyond the foreseeable future and understand that as we move forward in the next 20 25 years, we want to be able to meet that average and exceed it and have find opportunities to do so. But what does this all mean? It means that our responsibility doesn't end in 2025. We need to monitor recreation and art program trends. We need to be an advocate for the vision plan and amplify the relationship between community and the environment so improvements complement and align with adopted sustainability initiatives. So how to realize this vision? The

overall vision is set up in this structure. Eight principles are validated by five strategies and those strategies those principles are reinforced by 32 overall actions. Each of those actions have supporting recommendations to achieve those actions. The eight principles are nourish existing parks and park facilities, expand new parkland and open space, raise new park facilities, ideulate the Santa Monica State Beach, connect open space in the community, gather recreation and arts programming, sustain parks and facilities sustainability and maintenance, and support funding and meaningful partnerships. Each chapter of these principles is validated by the five strategies of strength strengthening access to parks facilities in the beach, rethinking streets with park potential, fostering social interaction, optimizing existing parks and beach experiences, and create new parkland. At a quick glance, I expect you to zoom in on this, but these are the eight overall principles and their 32 supporting actions. Excuse me. What you're seeing on the right is generally how the actions chapter chapter 3 is set up. The overall action is supported by a narrative. Underneath that narrative are all the supporting recommendations. Those are actionable items that we will look towards to implement over the next 20 25 years. establishing accountability on staff's end to continue the conversation about our parks and how we are positioning ourselves to take advantage of any partnerships or funding opportunities or just general planning principles as it comes to park and open space integration within our city. Just at a glance, I pulled some of those actions out just for quick discussion today. Action 7.1, build upon sustainability initiatives. that narrative. Santa Monica's climate

action and adaptation plan lays out a framework for enhancing the city's resilience to climate change through four sectors: climate ready community, water self-sufficiency, coastal flooding preparedness, and lowcarbon food and ecosystems. This plan's ability to complement actions outlined in the CAP and sustainable city plan demonstrate the city's commitment to preventing harm to the natural environment and human health and benefiting social and economic well-being of the community. Action 1.2.2 expand and enhance Memorial Park by 2.9 acres in accordance with the master plan conceptual layout. Action 2.1.5, conduct feasibility studies to cap sections of the I 10 freeway as the land use and circulation element recommends. Action 2.14 evaluate project scope against the sustainability administrative instruction. Action 5.1.4 Four, study the feasibility of establishing a minimum of one street segment within each neighborhood as a park street, removing vehicular traffic, integrating landscape and amenities. Action 2.2.2, evaluate the 12 acre airport park expansion project alongside airport conversion project to prioritize possible design and implementation efficiencies. And action 7.4, create a landscape vision plan. This is something that takes this plan and does a little bit more digging into the detail. Landscape vision plans are typically design guidelines for how we work with our park system. We don't have one of these currently. We have a maintenance and operations performance standards with public landscape division, but we don't have a tool to relay a lot of the information that exists within the public landscape division to our architects, consultants, and those who are invited to participate in the design of our city. This will help dig in a little bit more into the details. What kind of materials do we like to use? What kind of furnishings are appropriate? Um what kind of uh strategies we want to utilize to address

the priorities of accessibility. All those details will be part of that plan. Another important consideration that we took into this plan has to do with the 23 24 parks condition assessment. That assessment looked at all 30 of our parks and their facilities to understand the costs estimated costs associated with those m with the maintenance of those facilities. We then uh with interdep departmental collaboration established five 10 and 20 year work plans. Um with regard to the five-year work plan, we're looking at about a $42 million investment. 10-year work plan, $30 million. 20-year work plan, $24 million. These numbers can become exponential if we're not addressing them within their work plan. Items that aren't addressed in the five-year work plan get carried over to the 10-year work plan and that 30 number goes up even more. So, we want to be mindful that we want to be able to dedicate the right amount of funding to take care of our parks, especially as our city grows because what we have been finding out is that the life cycle of our amenities is responding in concert to the growth of our city. Things that used to last 20 years are now lasting about 15 years because they're just being overused. So, we want to make sure that we're not only considerate of adding new parks, but maintaining the parks we already have. So, what's next? We want to utilize this vision to help define projects and we want to reference the vision in establishing their missions. We want to validate the project process utilizing this vision and implement the project in order to validate the outcome and operations and report and establish a new benchmark for parks and open space projects. I mentioned the foreseeable future. Again, Memorial Park expansion is in schematic design with the intent to present that design to council in

December. I'm sure many of you uh are familiar with the airport conversion project. Both of these projects we are in our site. We are participating in them now. And again, when it comes down to what that park acreage number is, these are two projects that get us closer to that average. If you recall, to just meet the county average of 3.3, we need additional 134 acres. The airport site in of itself is 192 total acres. So if we look at these projects within our foreseeable future, so is that county average. We want to look beyond that to get to a goal that keeps us moving and keeps us advancing our park network. Again, city has habitat goals to enable open space to grow with the city to position the city to respond quickly and responsibil responsibly to opportunities that enhance our parks. Support water self-sufficiency, zero waste, and carbon neutrality. maintain open dialogue with the community about nature advocacy and reaffirm the sustainable rights ordinance. I will be presenting uh this is changed since this morning actually uh I will be going to the airport commission next week followed by the arts commission and Santa Monica aquatics advisory committee in October with uh presenting this document in October 28th city council meeting. Thank you. Do we have any public comment on this? No. Um I think we move towards open discussion.

Commissioner Landre.

Yeah, I have a few things. So, thank you for this. Um and I appreciate also the suggestions on how to read and all the things. I just want to ask a a few questions. Um so inspired by the circular economy uh meeting yesterday, how where in the report do we show the contribution that the park's vision could make to achieving carbon neutrality or even carbon the good carbon positivity by our uh by our deadlines. the we speak specifically to those four items and maybe this gets your question those four items of the cap within chapter 7. Uh within that we we provide recommendations on how to achieve those particular four priorities outlined in the cap. Does that answer?

I think I I'm looking at like in 7.1 I just I feel like it would be helpful to show more directly if we do this we will ac you know we will accelerate our our progress toward this goal by this date right to be to make it to make the tie because I saw right 7.1 says build on sustainability initiatives um and I think that's very helpful. But understanding um you know you so you say just to give an example right the urban forest master plan targets a 5% increase in urban tree canopy every 10 years. Well how does that does that get us there? So what in the parks plan how can we tie these together? Can we show that implementing A leads to achieving B? That's that's my question is, you know, how might we figure out a way to do that? Um, so that's more a rhetorical question, I guess. Um, my second question is having looked at the, um, public comment, uh, we got a lot of letters about artificial turf. Um are you taking a position on that in the report?

No. Uh one clarification I do want to add is that with when this report began um the the dialogue on turf versus grass hadn't elevated to the level it is now and also the preferred nomenclature wasn't clarified yet. So, for example, the park inventory along the top column, it know not not it notes areas with 10,000 square feet or more of turf. Turf was meant to be grass. There's only one location on page 97 where the two turf and grass are next to each other, which we are in the process of clarifying throughout the document. There are only two park amenities within our network that utilize artificial turf, which is our field and airport field. Everything else is grass. Um, but with regards to your question about whether or not this plan is taking position, currently the way it's drafted, it's not. But the comments that we have been hearing is that the community wants it to.

Okay. That sorry, that topic will be going to the Wreck and Parks Commission next Thursday with a little bit there's a little bit more things happening in the next week and a half.

Yeah. And and I thought this was a valuable point in the letter uh where I guess there was some SMMUSD someone cited that that Carrie Upton had noted that the the total life cycle cost of grass was not more than the total life cycle cost of turf and obviously had all the advantages of grass. I'm curious in your financial modeling did you are you think are you modeling life cycle costs? um or just upfront costs?

Oh, no. We're uh in the internal working group associated with this topic. We're analyzing everything. It's not just the upfront cost. It's to because there's been a lot of conversation about it's cheaper, it's more expensive turf is more expensive upfront, but it's less expensive long term. But then we're we're needing to understand like So it does need maintenance

number one. Number two is that is there ability to cancel out that cost differential if we are providing enough maintenance on natural grass to maintain the playability because it also comes down to playability. So we want to make sure that it's long-term maintenance. it's long-term playability against those years when we would get hit with those high dollar amounts and how those numbers might cancel out and lead to a decision.

I have to say I shy away any from anything that could increase our unknown liabilities and we don't know what the ultimate liabilities are going to be on artificial turf down the line. Two more questions. Um the I appreciated your comments about you know sort of thinking about community gardens and as part of of the rec as part of this vision and also the downtown pops as part of this vision. Um is there an opportunity for um particularly for us as we're you know we think about zoning and and development standards um to encourage these uh in new housing and other building production

uh really great idea right in in speaking with Teague and the community garden advisory committee they gave me a lot of different recommendations on all the nooks and crannies that we can tap I don't recall that being one of them. Okay.

Um, but I can see it being something that people really gravitated to. I I would love to see if there's a way that we could give credit for give I don't know if there's a way to do it but giving open space credit to the to sort of community gardens maybe rooftop maybe ground level maybe somewhere in the middle um that that are you know can be enjoyed by everyone even if people are managing their own little um spots. And then my last question is sort of a more sensitive one. I think I reading the community needs assessment and the concerns of the people who are not um you know who's not using the park. What are the concerns about the park? Where are the high levels of dissatisfaction? Um looking at action 1.1 which is really the first thing you kind of come across when you're reading this report and then looking at action 1.4 four. Um, have you given any consideration to leading with public safety? Uh, it is both the number one area of dissatisfaction uh in the survey among people who are reluctant to engage in parks. It's part of the conversation. And not to put too fine a point on it, but the capital costs for addressing public safety seem to be significantly lower than the capital costs of improving amenities. And if we're trying to in a in a the current environment, it strikes me that building support for the plan, you might want to think about leading with the safety and then going on to the next stuff, particularly in view of council priorities and you know our budget capacity.

That's a really great comment and I think from the point of view that one of the that are holding the community back taking full advantages full advantage of our parks and open spaces is that home and safety. So if we can again lead with that just get that out the door as that's a priority and then it kind of leads into Thank you. I I have thoughts to sort of say but those are my four questions. Commissioner Fresco,

thank you for the lovely document. Um and nice to meet you. Um, I had uh we're gonna have a private conversation about history yet, so I won't bore you all with the stories. Um, I was kind of curious because you did refer to Woodlon Cemetery as part of the park system and I just wanted to understand what is meant by that. I mean, it's just green. Is that why?

Yes. So, um, the reason it's mentioned is because As part of the countywide assessment, there is a parks portal that kind of logs all open spaces. We have an obligation as part of our measure a grant funding to update any acreage changes or any improvements that are that happen within these open spaces within that portal. Woodlon ceme woodland ceme woodland cemetery is part of that inventory because it is open.

I see. And it's not included in the overall calculation. It is pulled out just to acknowledge that there is a relationship between park open space and this other thing that is also green also green. It's also linked to measure.

Thank you. Um so uh I have well I commented on things in the beginning and then they may come up again when I talk more about specific uh actions. But there was overall a in the beginning there was a reference to the ideas of social justice and I didn't see a lot of actions related to social justice but I have some ideas. So um I thought I'd just you'll hear them. The first one that came to mind is Shader Park, which is our tiniest park in the city. And Shader, who it was named for, it was probably the most racist person in the history of the city. I don't know, maybe. Um, so I would certainly consider renaming that park. So even though it's very small, I don't like to see his name there. Uh then um oh yeah and I just wanted to comment on the turf versus grass concept. And I think this is like a really important idea for all of us planners and thinkers about city planning because when turf first came up, it came up because it was the answer to a horrible drought situation we were in and we were just trying to anything to solve the drought and the sol the long-term impacts of the solution almost didn't seem to matter anymore and I think we always have a tendency to do that with the problem of the day and I just want to remind us all to remember to always think holistically about all of our problems including housing and the airport and everything else all of these things have to fit holistically into the long-term function

of our city. So that's just a little lesson learned about that. Um so uh you note in uh chapter three um that there are many parks in the city that have historic significance in various ways. Palisades Park is a landmark. Uh Bay Street Park is part of a national register designation and there are parts that I can think of that I think could possibly qualify as landmarks and uh we might want to consider in order to preserve that heritage in our parks. Uh a program that would wave nomination and uh other fees related to landmark designation so that it's possible to generate applications from the community for those. Um, so that was one idea. Um,

what were the two parks you had in mind? Douglas and Hotchkiss. I was right on one of them. I knew Hatchkiss was going to be on the list. Okay. No, Douglas Park is I mean, both of them have really strong New Deal connection. Anyway,

okay. That's one of the stories. Um there as during our extreme drought emergency, we uh did have a lot of developments that were in a DA. We don't do DAS anymore, but back when we did, there were a lot of public courts that were like public spaces, those privately owned things, and they're all concrete. And uh we talk a lot about greening and as we move forward in our housing element and we uh break these breakthrough with these uh get shovels in the ground on these 4,000 units, we're going to be paving over more and more of our open space. And so thinking about our open spaces as being permeable is going to become increasingly important. So when we talk about greening to remember it's not only trees up above but the ground underneath. Just as a general idea, dirt is important is what I wrote. Uh also noting just as another little thing about landmarks uh that you did note somewhere that you thought that the landmarks commission might be able to have purview, but they can't have purview or anything unless it's actually a landmark. That's just not how the law works. Um, so, uh, so then later on, uh, Oh, yeah. So, I was curious about how we're going to negotiate the idea that if parcels become available that the city could purchase for parkland. And there's housing on that part. So, how we weigh the balance and make the

choice and where we're going to go, that's a pretty tough choice in this climate. And, you know, I it just makes the idea of growing our park inventory that much harder. So, that's something to just have eyes wide open. I don't know if there's a way to think about how we can make those choices in the future if there's some way to decide but uh so one of the uh there was a discussion oh this is part of uh action two um you talk about um ex using parkway medians like San Vicente and I think you also mentioned fourth street which by the way is another landscape, but whatever. Um,

what about Olympic? Yes. What about Olympic? Olympic, that is a huge that be gets into our whole social justice thing. Olympic Boulevard uh is right next to the areas that were uh basically destroyed by the freeway. And of course, um, they it's still near other neighborhoods that are very parklacking, even though it is across the freeway from them. But hopefully we can solve some of that. And it would be a great place for community gardens. There's lots of parking there. It wasn't there. No,

that was must have been an air because we had a lot of conversations about all the different things you can put in the lake. So, yeah, there is actually a little community in there like on 18th Street or something. There's something going on there. The native habitat area.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's pretty cool. Um so there's just a lot of potential and also the idea of like using those parkways to mix uh what did you call them? Public orchards community. But the idea of just like food bearing trees and public spaces that you know using parkways for that amid you know running and bicycle tracks because we do have those three major streets that have those parkways and so Olympics and four streets. So those are all things that could be combined in different ways that make them really valuable space. So that's the tree. So, in terms of freeway capping, the uh loose, as I understand it, recommends freeway capping near Fourth Street, which is the one part of the freeway that we did is actually a natural gully that we didn't dig out and ruin people's lives. And there's 7,000 ft of freeway that was dug out between Seventh Street and the East City limit that was excavated for the freeway and displaced all of those people. So, uh, if we're going to talk about freeway capping, that would be a place where we could actually restore connection with the community that's up there that was disconnected from their commercial center, which was on Olympic Boulevard. And all those businesses, as you can see, are gone because of that disconnection. Uh, and so forth. So, that is social justice such suggestion. Um, you talked a few times in the report about a new aquatic center and I just think it should be named for George F, uh, I don't know if you guys know who he is, but he was the guy who basically brought surfing from Hawaii to

California at the turn of the century. And he was a really cool guy and died at a very young age of the Spanish flu, which was very unfortunate, but he has a great story and we should recognize him. So Neymar aquatic center for him. Uh uh okay I go back on Olympic again. Medians orchards. I'm almost there guys. Uh is there a way maybe I talked earlier about the uh imperous surfaces that are coming in our future. Maybe there's a way we can actually monitor how much coverage we're getting and making sure that we're maintaining uh things. Uh I made a note with exclamation points about the idea of sponsorships because boy has Santa Monica changed. And oh, and the last thing is the idea we talk about making parks feel safer and look more beautiful and Removing chain link fences is a really great way to deal with both of these ideas. Chainlink fence is often considered people in their minds they associate it with blight. It's you know I can think like uh present bay park the one on the national register that's not has some pretty nasty chain fence.

Yeah. Just because you know it's like lawsuit prevention fence and that's not pretty. So you know they could do better. And you know there are other weird place you know odd little spots around various parts that have unsightly chain that you don't need. So those were my listen commissioner track.

Thank you. Firstly, I just want to applaud staff on a very timely vision and also a very comprehensive approach to dealing with a complex situation where acquiring parks is not as a sort of a traditional solution is not that viable anymore. And I think the plan is full of promise in terms of identifying avenues to explore. Um I do have a couple of questions maybe not as many as Commissioner Fresco, but I'll start with with maybe piggybacking on one that Commissioner Fresco mentioned regarding that trade-off between housing and open space. That's something that intrigues me and I'm curious whether part of this effort is actually exploring the potential for coordination, collaboration with the housing dilemma that we have potentially in terms of maybe finding opportunities where both can be accomplished given that uh the housing generates a need for open space and open space enhances housing and the two together can actually get more than the sum of the parts. So I'm just curious about that given the timing. I mean we're maybe a little bit more than halfway through the arena cycle.

Yes.

I mean I personally would love it. I come from a background that I was a landscape designer and landscape at a landscape architecture firm. We did a lot of multif family housing projects. Um I listening to the conversation earlier this evening, you know, the the thought of more development sooner was intriguing because there is park impact fee associated with that. At the same time, you balance that with you have the money to invest in parks, but we don't have the land to do so. Uh which is why we're in the process of writing an RFP for new study to help us maybe ways to right now the the way it's the fee is written is that we use it for acquisition expansion only not improvements. So considering how we can maybe based on our the fact that we don't have as many opportunities to grow and expand and we're coming limited on space there's a way to roll in improvements because we are city and our opportunities are in the foreseeable future. So, if we can find a way to get more funding through that avenue to improve our parks to maybe elevate them to a level that can accommodate more amenities and serve the larger population, that would be

and I just add to that I mean that sounds great, but I just add to that that I think particular attention to the areas that are high need or very high need where it's particularly challenging I guess to find opportunities but there are potentially sites even though they may be small sites talking about things like that that

we did receive a lot of comment about those particular areas of from those particular neighborhoods uh and thinking about how they acknowledge that there isn't a lot of opportunities to acquire new land in those areas but there is opportunity to really invest in the network the pedestrian network within those areas which is I believe it was this commission where we heard the recommendation of creating park streets or finding segments of the streets to do that. Um, that was also something we heard in those outreach meetings to really think about those opportunities because they they have the those particular neighborhoods have great walking loops urban trail systems. They know like if I walk this way, I walk a mile. And if we can invest in the those other tactics to kind of elevate those, that would be avenue to invest. which is why studying the feasibility of those is going to be uh its own endeavor in terms of the estab understanding where those opportunities exist and then having the conversations with neighborhood to understand if that's something they actually want to take advantage of because there is of course we don't I don't live there maybe many of you don't live there but we don't understand what their conditions are in those neighborhoods they might create more problems they might actually have it might create solutions to problems So having those conversations

in the interest of time I think I just have one more question. There was one action that caught my interest. I think it was action 2.2.7 that referred to the prominard 3.0 plan. Yes. And I was curious to hear just a little bit more about so yes it is

stunning. Yes, it it was a very very robust and expensive endeavor of a a vision for renovation to the prominade. And so there are a lot of great ideas in there. Um and we want to be able to we already have been as part of the economic recovery efforts uh with public works side of things was charged with was looking at that and saying what elements of this 3.0 plan can we start to utilize now that isn't ripping up the street and repaving or adding more of X Y and Z that cost a lot of money but we look at that plan as these are the areas where have been highlighted as the best program areas can we kind of focus our area of attention on that and utilize that plan to help guide some of those tactical urbanism types of interventions

so this plan is actually available somewhere online. Yes, it is. Okay, great. Commissioner Wasserman, um, do you want questions now, comments later, both? Okay, this is just open discussion. Um, yeah, a few questions about the I guess I'm stuck on the acreage goal. First, this metric has its own problems, but how do we compare sort of dis population weight to distance to a park? How do we compare?

How do we compare to national averages, national recommendations? Oh, it's I mean I could utilize an example like within our area like West LA for example like our our population is about 72% of the population is within like a quarter mile watcher whereas like Venice Palms Marista they're much more significant larger distances so their percentage goes down I think 20% um but average wise. I'd have to I can dig into that a little bit more to give you some

Yeah. I mean, I just bring it up because the the acreage like, you know, I I used to live by Griffith Park. It's great. I love that it's so big. The additional acreage has less and less marginal benefit to people um just, you know, because there's only so many people who are close enough to access it. Um I mean and then you know obviously if you just have a tiny pocket park that's not the same as a big park so it has to be something in between. Um but the sort of focus on acreage is a gives me pause also just because of like so doing some mental math here we have 140 something acres of park the airport adds 190 the goal the common planning standard here of five I don't know how we get there even in a billion trillion dollar vision like capping every acre of the five I I I mapped this out earlier is 55 acres. So, we'd still need 60 70 more acres. Um, even if we cap of the 10, if we kept over the whole 10, like what I if we have an high acre threshold, I mean to the points that that Nina and Pier raised, what what is that saying? When we have a parcel, if we recommend say five acres per thousand people, will this plan then be used to say this is one thing we should weigh um in deciding what to do with that parcel?

Yes. Um because when it so when we want to determine our overall need there will be a threshold you know our population will only grow so it will grow to a maximum I hope and not grow anymore beyond that but there will be a correlating number to reach to meet that need. So for example that the community recreation needs assessment also noted examples of like the types of amenities we have. We have six rectangular fields that we utilize for various sports and whatnot. There is a recommendation based on the national parks association recommendations of what we need to meet. So that being said, like there are a number of fields, baseball fields, softball fields, etc. that we we need more of to meet the need. So as our as our city continues to grow, those numbers will continue to go up, which has a correlating acreage associated with it. So there's we also want to be able to have a number that helps us prioritize our open So when we have the discussions about balancing more housing versus open space, we understand that there is a baseline number that we need to meet an average within our region, but also that there's a number that we want to get beyond that so that we can provide a level of service that is comparable to growth. Does that help answer?

Yes. I mean, well, one growth. We've been at 90,000 people for decades. Um, but I yeah, I don't know. I I I struggle with setting a thresh an acre threshold in a document like this that considers parks in quite extensive detail, but then doesn't, for good reason, consider all the other uses of the land. And then if we're saying in isolation, okay, we want to essentially more than double our current parks acreage in this parks document, then that will be used in other contexts to say, hey, we agreed as a city that we need to do this, so we should use this land as a park parcel over a housing parcel over a commercial parcel, whatever. Um, I feel uncomfortable making that determination in isolation when just talking about parks without consideration of the other uses. Um, uh, see what do I have here? Uh, off that topic for a second. Um, the, um, turf discussion. I'll just make the comment that, yeah, got a lot of comments. I also agree that um I would hope that this plan could just have a blanket recommendation against new turf and ideally against uh about replacing existing artificial turf. Um the health, safety, economic consequences seem pretty clear to me. Um, I was just looking at the Memorial Park, um, EIR, which calls for new synthetic turf, um, which is not great, um, to see this coming out, you know, as we have this vision plan. And I don't know if it's strictly not in accord with the document here, but it it seems like there's conflict here. Um, and then finally, I guess what I wanted

to maybe highlight, I don't know if it would go in the document, but is um if we're blue skying big vision, um, not just like play streets, closing the streets, that's great, but also just reclaiming asphalt, tearing out asphalt. Um, the state street project in New Haven is one that I think of where they had a a divided road like Sanente say, um, comparable and they they took out half of it. it is returning to park green land. I think maybe they're building housing on it. Um part of it too, but um like you know that is far more costly, but if we're if we're thinking big picture here, like what we can repurpose our pavement space in addition to capping um the freeway as well. So I just raise that for consideration.

Thank you. Any further questions? Um thank you for a great presentation. I I just wanted to a lot has been said so I don't want to reiterate but can you define for me when you say uh what do you mean by the city is habitat can you define what you mean by habitat and habitat for whom this birds animals bugs butterflies and I and if it is that's what I would love to see so how do you define habitat

exactly that it's increasing biodiversity and um really looking at how we can utilize our parks as part of the solution to addressing carbon neutrality, zero waste, water sufficiency. Okay. Utilizing as as utilizing our parks as a tool and taking advantage of the fact that they have the capacity to try to so natural habitat, native native species type habitat. Correct. Okay. I'll warn you that a lot of people think that looks like weeds

and and weeds are I I I weeds might not look nice to people who are used to nice green lawns, but natural habitat is actually vital to the our ecosystem. And so I want to just have you guys really lean into that.

Yes. And that's something um in particular that we So when I came on board in April of 24, we were It was about two weeks prior to the first community outreach associated with Douglas Park playground reconstruction. That particular process taught us a lot about this outreach process and education not only on the project but on the materials being used and how they're used and the opportunities available to essentially lack of better phrase manipulate the the materials to our benefit. And so that has opened up opportunity to really think about how we utilize public outreach in terms of more education especially with

um plants and natives. It came up in our sustainability meeting this past Monday about utilizing the opportunity to educate the community and make them aware of what this plant looks like day one, what it's going to look like, what it does, and what kind of habitat it can create. So that people understand that we sort of manage the expectation so that they know that at one any given time, for example, a native grass will be sheared back knowing that it will grow back, right? But it might not the best some part of the year.

I'm sure a lot of people have driven down Olympic and have seen that one part of on the median and thought that the city just stopped mowing the lawn. And um I think there is an education component that we really need to have as part of this. But and then you also talk about parks and open space. How do you um and open space is defined as what is that where we get into the discussion about the oliveette reservoir and wood lawn and the Santa Monica beach?

Yes. So it's mostly those public regional like the like the prominad's an open space. Yes. Um not all of that's an open space. Um the areas that aren't typically looked at as being true park have amenities to utilize. But

if we take wood lawn as an example, it's all lawn on top of a res. And so is there opportunity to look at I know we've already had the conversation about like within its lifespan, it's probably its lifespan is about to the end of probably this vision plan, but looking at is there ways to if we can't utilize it as a park, is there ways to utilize it as areas for planting? What I like about the combination of that is I like the idea of the city looking at all of its open space as potential habitat. And you know that would mean letting parts of Woodlon or the Olivet Mount Olivet reservoir return to a more natural state. And I know even within Woodlon Cemetery there's a section that is allowed to go back to a more natural state. And I would encourage the city to find as many ways as possible to um look at its parks and open space. But even like you know it's parks where right now we just have grass growing. Are there areas in there vast areas that we could take that grass out and have it return to a more natural habitat? Because grass is not really habitat. grass is actually an ant, you know, it's almost it's a little bit better than asphalt, but not much. Um, okay. Um, I really appreciate and thank you for keeping your your streets as parks concept alive in this. Um, I think that I I I liked what you said about removing vehicle access from some of these streets, but I think that if you do get push back, I think there's ways to thoughtfully integrate cars that people can go into their driveways

and, you know, those residents still have access while still keeping that street uh safe, walkable, bikable um in a lot of areas to remove asphalt um on those streets. to let you know plants grow back. Um I did want to touch on real quickly the medians. I'm glad uh Commissioner Fresco brought this up on Saneni Fourth Street and Olympic. Um, those are underutilized park spaces and first of all, I I live on San Vicente, so I have firsthand experience on this. Um, that you can't like building a nice park on the median of San Vicente doesn't work unless you've done the traffic calming around it. And that's one thing that I wish the city manager was able to give his remarks because I get the sense that we're trying to take take down silos within the city. So you're you're working on parks but circulation and is working on streets and then public safety is sending the police are sending you know uh an officer on San Baseni to you know you know get catch speeders but like it's all it's all together so if you're going to look at uh you know Olympic or Saneni as potential park areas we need to do something to take down the lanes from 2 to one and reclaim some of this space for parkland while also calming traffic. Um, nobody feels safe running on these medians in the in Olympic is just as bad. I spent a lot of time on Olympic as well at Memorial Park and there are people going as with San

Vicente 50 to 60 miles an hour um pretty frequently on those streets. So it all needs to be cohesive and work together. Um but uh you know th those medians and like any other kind of grass area um could be returned to a more natural habitat if that's the city's intent and I think probably over the long term it's a it's a lower cost option um but it will probably cost a lot more at the front end that but anyways that's all I have a lot of I really thank you for a really good uh very thorough presentation thank you And Commissioner Landress, anything else?

Yeah, I just had I have a couple of I mean um one thing I just want to note from, you know, in terms of finding alternatives uh for open space. I mean, just today's Daily Breast talks about this new upwardbound house urban farm uh which came from donated space uh uh from a from a a real estate development firm. So, you can read about that in the Daily Press. It just happened to be today. I have some specific comments. I think um I found the section on partnerships and we are Santa Monica kind of painful to read um and would love there to be fewer words and a focus on streamlining um you know we don't need our own park f I mean city of Los Angeles parks foundation county of Los Angeles has a parks foundation I think we're a small enough city that we don't need our own standalone Parks Foundation, but there's the way that that is written is not something I would ever ever ever show a philanthrop potential philanthropic partner. We're going to do this and then you're going to do that and then we're going to submit this for this approval. No,

we have the we are Santa Monica Fund. We have a vehicle for securing not philanthropic support for our parks. That is great. Let's use it. like think about who's going to look at that page and how somebody could go out and actually see we have philanthropic partnerships in our in our plan. And similarly, and Commissioner Fresco alluded to this in terms of let's find more partnerships. I think the whole notion of we want to do more with our parks, we want to add these amenities, we want to add these programs, we want to get the word out more. um then we probably need to streamline the way that we let people do stuff in our parks and if we don't have money but there are people out there who are willing to spend money uh to activate our parks then I think and this goes back to the holistic thinking and it goes back to the way in which we envision the way we do this work then I think the section on those partnerships again needs to focus on making it really easy for that to happen. We obviously want to collect fees from people who are doing private business in our parks, right? Like, you know, the exercise classes, things like that. But at the same time, for people who are wanting to open it up to the public, they're wanting to support populations that are priority populations for us, how can we simplify, simplify, simplify, and make it as easy as possible and then amplify that and say, "Hey, look what's happening in Santa Monic Parks." Um, and then the last thing is just pointing out that something that didn't exist. I don't believe when did we pass this? Um, uh, I believe it was 2020, but measure W literally taxes impermeable surfaces and everything that we're talking about in terms of encouraging permeability.

You can do permeable bike paths now, right? Um, what if we imagined like the city as a park? Go back to your point about like 1997. What can we permeate? Like take the whole city, right? This goes back to my point about the the cap, right? And and and how we're driving that. If the whole let's just let's just permeate where we can permeate. uh reimagine what it means to be a park and think about ways that we can that's something we can en encourage developers to do right in our build in our development standards to minimize per they'll pay lower taxes right we'll get more permeable uh more perial ground space which advances the kind of natural development that you were talking about chair so those are my additional comments

no I want to I I do have a love of permeable able ground cover. I think not a lot of people not a lot of people do. Um okay, let's I say we wrap up uh this discussion if we could. I want to say okay. Have you ever been and come walk down Commonwealth Avenue in Boston? It's a park with tons of traffic with Boston drivers on either side and it's a great park. So, you know, yeah,

just to put that out there. We we could have a great jogging path from 26 in Saneni all the way around along the Palisades Park and then back up, you know, we can we could have a a really great jogging path network and then up Olympic potentially and and yeah, because we're not I mean to to Jacob's point, we have 144 acres. just to get to the county average, we'd have to double the amount of parks, and that's just not going to happen. And the airport park is still a twinkle in everyone's eye. Um, we're going to have to be creative in in how we bring recreational kind of park-like activities to to Santa Monica. And so, it's going to be about activating our kind of passive open space for habitat. and it's going to have to be through uh letting people use our streets for something other than automobile traffic or driving cars as fast as we can. So, we just have to be creative and I think this plan incorporates that.

Is there a way to do that? Um I'm just thinking about you're I'm just imagining Sameni having right like one side of the median is now just a bike and walk lane um and the other side of the you know the other side of the median is now a two-way street or something. But um is there a way to do that so that it also is prevents fire? I mean, you'll deal with that on October 15th with local hazard mitigation, but um I just wonder if there's a way that that can be both hardening, you know, that part of Santa Monica relative to fire, but also permeating, you know, creating permeable ground. Question. I like your idea.

All right. Um, can I get a vote to um close off this study session on item 8A? I'm just gonna stop. Okay. Um, okay. Now we're moving on to um Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Um, written communication. Um, have there has there been any written communication that we need to discuss? That wasn't in an action item. Okay. Um, okay. We have now um 14A. Um, does transit oriented development need need the transit? Um, Commissioner Wasserman,

I don't need to keep you here, but it's a great five-page article. Essentially, you get a lot of the benefits of transit oriented development just by having dense development with low parking. You don't necessarily need rail. So, something to think about. Thank you. Okay. Appreciate you sharing that. Yeah. Thank you. That was really good. Um, okay. I think we're ready for adjournment. Uh, can I how do we adjourn again? Do I do we need to take a vote? Just adjourn. Okay. Okay. We are hereby adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Well done.