March 18, 2014 Council Packet - City of Santa Monica

AGENDA CITY OF SANTA MONICA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 1685 MAIN STREET TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2014

MEETING BEGINS AT 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL This is a special City Council meeting. Public comment is restricted to only items listed on the agenda.) 1. CLOSED SESSIONS: 1-A:

Conference with Labor Negotiator. City Negotiator: Donna Peter, Director of Human Resources Bargaining Units: Administrative Team Associates (ATA) SM Fire Executive Management Association (FEMA) SM Firefighters Local 1109 IAFF (Fire) Municipal Employees Association (MEA) Management Team Associates (MTA) SM Police Officers Association (POA) Supervisory Team Associates (STA) California Teamsters Local 911 (Teamsters) United Transportation Union (UTU)

1-B:

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Platkov, et al v. City of Santa Monica, et al, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 508 714

1-C:

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, Federal Aviation Administration and Michael P. Huerta, in his Official Capacity as Administrator of the FAA, United States District Court Case Number 2:31-CV 8046 JFW (VBKx)

1

March 18, 2014

1-D:

Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Anticipate significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) – 1 case

1-E:

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Santa Monica v. Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number SC 121 060

The following is the order of business for items to be heard no earlier than 6:30 p.m. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items will be considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.) 3-A:

Approval of minutes for February 11, 2014 and February 25, 2014 City Council meetings.

MINUTES 3-B:

Modification to Professional Services Agreement with ConserveTrack LLC for webbased software system to track and report water-saving projects and programs – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a fourth modification to Professional Services Agreement 1651 with ConserveTrack, LLC, in the amount of $114,635 to continue providing licensing, hosting, support and maintenance for the ConserveTrack web-based software system to track and report water-saving projects and programs, resulting in a three year amended agreement and two-year renewal option for a total of 11 years with a new total amount not to exceed $179,635, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

STAFF REPORT 3-C:

Apply for Three Grants To Improve Ocean Water Quality and Augment the Local Water Supply and Adopt a Resolution to Apply for One of the Grants – recommendation that City Council: 1) Adopt a resolution authorizing the application for grant funds in the amount of $500,000 from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grant program to demonstrate an urban runoff harvesting project for non-potable irrigation at Ozone Park; 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to apply for and accept grants; and 3) Authorize budget changes.

STAFF REPORT

2

March 18, 2014

3-D:

Bid Award for Purchase of Metal Refuse/Recycling Bins – recommendation to award Bid #4101 to Consolidated Fabricators Corp., in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for FY 2013-14 for the purchase of 2 and 3-yard metal refuse/recycling bins, with two one-year options to renew for a total award amount not to exceed $296,000 over a three-year period, with future year funding contingent upon Council budget approval.

STAFF REPORT 3-E:

Purchase of Cummins Engine Replacement Parts for Transit Services – recommendation to award Bid #4124 to Cummins Pacific, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $600,000 for the purchase and delivery of Original Equipment Manufacturer Cummins Compressed Natural Gas engine replacement parts, with two additional one-year renewal options in the amount of $1,200,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1,800,000 over a three-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council approval and budget adoption.

STAFF REPORT 3-F:

Second Agreement Modification with Cedarwood-Young, Inc. d/b/a/ Allan Company for Recycling Processing Services and First Agreement Modification with Southern California Disposal for Transfer and Hauling Services – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to service agreement 9012 (CCS) with Cedarwood-Young, Inc. d/b/a Allan Company to reflect changes in the scope of services; and, authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to service agreement 9011 (CCS) with Southern California Disposal to reflect changes in the operation.

STAFF REPORT 3-G:

Purchase of Mobile Computers for the Fire Department – recommendation that the City Council award Bid #4127 to Lehr Automotive in the amount of $275,000, for the purchase of mobile data computers for the Fire Department.

STAFF REPORT 3-H:

Sublease of Retail Space at 223 Broadway – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a sublease agreement with Washington Earth Spa, LLC for the retail space at 223 Broadway that would extend through June 30, 2017.

STAFF REPORT

3

March 18, 2014

3-I:

Amendment to Provide Additional Scope of Work for the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Contract No. 9687 (CCS), with AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., in the amount of $170,000 to provide additional environmental consulting services for the Downtown Specific Plan and Program Environmental Impact Report, resulting in a two-year amended contract with a new total amount not to exceed $771,000.

STAFF REPORT 3-J:

Funding Modification for the Real-Time Beach Parking Project – recommendation to authorize the following FY 2013-14 budget changes: 1) reduce revenue budget in the amount of $57,121; and 2) reduce expenditure budget in the amount of $57,121.

STAFF REPORT 3-K:

Auditing Services for the City of Santa Monica – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to Professional Services Agreement #9373 (CCS) with Macias Gini & O’Connell in the amount of $44,000 to provide financial auditing services, resulting in a five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $797,281, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

STAFF REPORT 3-L:

Sublease of Space at 1630 17th Street – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a sublease agreement with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District for the space at 1630 17 th Street, beginning April 1, 2014 and extending through August 31, 2021, in accordance with the terms described, and authorize the budget changes.

STAFF REPORT 4. STUDY SESSION: 4-A:

Results from 2014 Resident Survey on Future Development – recommendation that the City Council review and comment on the results from the 2014 Resident Survey on future development.

STAFF REPORT

4

March 18, 2014

7. ORDINANCES: (Public comment is permitted on ordinances for introduction and first reading. No public discussion is permitted on ordinances for second reading and adoption.) 7-A:

Hold Public Hearing and Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Granting a Franchise Agreement to Crimson California Pipeline, L.P. for a Crude Petroleum Pipeline

STAFF REPORT 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9-A:

Public Hearing of the Annual review of the City’s Plan for Homeless Services – recommendation that the City Council: 1) hold a public hearing and receive public comment on the Annual Review of the City’s Plan for Homeless Services, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.69.030; 2) review and comment on strategies to address homelessness; and 3) direct staff to proceed with next steps.

STAFF REPORT 13. COUNCILMEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS: 13-A: Recommendation to accept Sanford Weintraub’s resignation from the Social Services Commission. 13-B: Request of Councilmember Holbrook that the Council direct staff to research and analyze regulation of e-cigarettes with consideration of recent actions in Los Angeles and Long Beach and report back the results to Council. 13-C: Request of Councilmember McKeown that, in light of the recent legal settlement between Village Trailer Park residents and the developers of the Village Trailer Park property, that the Council direct staff to explore options for allowing remaining Village Trailer Park residents to relocate to the City’s Mountain View mobile home park, allowing them to remain residents of our community, outside of any obligations or constraints in the Development Agreement for the Village Trailer Park property, simply waiving any City deadlines contained therein. INFORMATION ADJOURNMENT. Any documents produced by the City and distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available at the City Clerk's Counter located at City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, and at the City’s public libraries during normal business hours. Documents are also available at http://www.smgov.net/departments/clerk/agendas.aspx. For a free subscription to City Council Agendas sign up at http://www01.smgov.net/win or call the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211.

5

March 18, 2014

Any member of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the meeting by mailing them to: City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. Comments may also be e-mailed to: [email protected] Si desea comunicarse con alguien en español, llame a nuestra oficina al (310) 458-8211 y pida hablar con Esterlina Lugo. City Hall and the Council Chamber is wheelchair accessible. If you require any special disability related accommodations (i.e. sign language interpreting, access to an amplified sound system, etc.), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or TDD: (310) 917-6626 at least 3 days prior to the scheduled meeting. This agenda is available in alternate format upon request by calling the City Clerk’s Office. Parking is available in front of City Hall and on Olympic Drive and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).

6

March 18, 2014

Item 3-A 3/18/2014 (NOT APPROVED) CITY OF SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2014 A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor O’Connor at 5:31 p.m., on Tuesday, February 11, 2014, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street. Roll Call:

Present:

Also Present:

Mayor Pam O’Connor Mayor Pro Tem Terry O’Day (arrived at 5:44 p.m.) Councilmember Gleam Davis (arrived at 5:40 p.m.) Councilmember Robert T. Holbrook Councilmember Kevin McKeown Councilmember Tony Vazquez (arrived at 5:41 p.m.) Councilmember Ted Winterer City Manager Rod Gould City Attorney Marsha Jones Moutrie City Clerk Sarah P. Gorman

CONVENE/PLEDGE

On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:31 p.m., with all members present except Mayor Pro Tem O’Day and Councilmembers Vazquez and Davis. Councilmember Winterer led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

CLOSED SESSIONS

There was no one present for public comment on closed sessions.

Councilmember Davis arrived at 5:40 p.m.

On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 5:34 p.m., to consider closed sessions and returned at 7:17 p.m., with all members present, to report the following:

Councilmember Vazquez arrived at 5:41 p.m.

1-A: Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, Federal Aviation Administration and Michael P. Huerta, in his Official Capacity as Administrator of the FAA, United States District Court Case Number 2:31-CV 8046 JFW (VBKx)

Mayor Pro Tem O’Day arrived at 5:44 p.m.

The City Attorney advised this matter was heard and no reportable action was taken.

1

February 11, 2014

1-B: Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54656.9(d)(1): Minin v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number SC 116 644 Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to approve Settlement No. 9876 (CCS), related to a bus accident, in the amount of $187,500. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES:

Councilmembers Vazquez, Davis, Holbrook, Winterer, McKeown, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor O’Connor NOES: None ABSENT: None 1-C: Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Anticipate significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) – 5 cases: 1) Claim of Dunn and Robhana; 2) 1650 and 1660 Lincoln Boulevard (NMS Properties); 3) 423 Ocean Avenue; 4 and 5) 2 cases Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember Vazquez, to approve Settlement No. 9877 (CCS) in the 423 Ocean Avenue matter, a stand-still agreement arising out of a claim related to a landmarked property owner’s application for a certificate of economic hardship. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES:

Councilmembers McKeown, Winterer, Holbrook, Davis, Vazquez, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor O’Connor NOES: None ABSENT: None 1-D: Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): McKnight v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 450336 The City Attorney advised this matter was heard and no reportable action was taken. REPORT ON MEETING COMPENSATION

Pursuant to State law, City Clerk Sarah Gorman announced respectively that Council will receive no compensation for meeting as the Redevelopment Successor Agency.

2

February 11, 2014

CONSENT CALENDAR:

There being a Consent Calendar each for the City Council and the Redevelopment Successor Agency, on order of the Mayor, and with consensus of Councilmembers, the Council convened to a joint meeting with the Redevelopment Successor Agency at 7:20 p.m. and the two Consent Calendars were held concurrently. All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion. ROLL CALL FOR SPECIAL JOINT MEETING: PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers Vazquez, Davis, Holbrook, Winterer, McKeown, Chair Pro Tem/Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Chair/Mayor O’Connor NOES: None ABSENT: None Members of the public Denise Barton and Marc Abraham commented on various Consent Calendar items. Motion by Agency/Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Agency/Councilmember Vazquez, to approve the Consent Calendar, reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES:

Agency/Councilmembers Vazquez, Davis, Holbrook,Winterer, McKeown, Chair Pro Tem/Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Chair/Mayor O’Connor NOES: None ABSENT: None MINUTES

3-A: The minutes of the January 14, 2014, City Council meeting were approved.

MEETING CANCELLATION

3-B: Cancellation of a regular Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 11, 2014, was approved.

PRINT SHOP

3-C: Award a Non-Renewable Lease Agreement for One Xerox Color Copy Machine for the City’s Print Shop – recommendation to award Bid No. 4105 and authorize the City Manager to execute contract service Agreement No. 9869 (CCS) with Xerox Corporation, in the amount of $346,020, for a five-year period for the lease and maintenance of one color copy machine, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval, was approved.

SANTA MONICA FESTIVAL

3-D: Santa Monica Festival Production Services – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a professional

3

February 11, 2014

services Agreement No. 9870 (CCS) with Community Arts Resources (CARS), in the amount of $100,000 annually to produce the Santa Monica Festival in 2014 and 2015 with options in 2016, 2017 and 2018, was approved. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRAINING

3-E: Purchase of One Hazardous Materials Training Tanker Prop System – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No. 9871 (CCS) with Fireblast Global, in an amount not to exceed $250,092, for the purchase and delivery of a mobile hazardous material tanker live fire training prop system, was approved.

ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE

3-F: Professional Services Agreement with Dyett & Bhatia to provide additional work associated with the Zoning Ordinance update – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No. 9872 (CCS) with Dyett & Bhatia, in the amount of $20,000, to provide professional services to assist with the completion of the City’s Zoning Ordinance update, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $1,753,470, including a previously awarded contract with Dyett & Bhatia for related services, was approved.

FURNITURE PROCUREMENT

3-G: Professional Services Agreement for Knoll Furniture Procurement and Consulting Services – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute professional services Agreement No. 9873 (CCS) with Western Office Interiors, to provide Knoll furniture procurement and consulting services for three years in an amount not to exceed $620,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval, was approved.

BERKELEY STREET TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY

3-H: Professional Services Agreement Modification for Berkeley Street Traffic Engineering Study – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Professional Services Agreement No. 9874 (CCS) with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., in the amount of $30,000 to provide design services to implement recommendations of the Berkeley Street Traffic Engineering study, resulting in a three year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $90,000, was approved.

RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR JULY 2014 –DECEMBER 2014

3-I: Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule: July 2014 through December 2014 and Administrative Budgets – recommendation that the Santa Monica Redevelopment Successor Agency (Agency), adopt Resolution No. 17 (SA) entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE SANTA MONICA REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR JULY 2014 – DECEMBER 2014”, and Resolution No. 18 (SA) entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE SANTA MONICA REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY APPROVING AND

4

February 11, 2014

ADOPTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2014 – DECEMBER 2014, INCLUSIVE”, was adopted. ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING

The special meeting of the Redevelopment Successor Agency was adjourned at 7:24 p.m., and the regular City Council meeting reconvened, with all members present.

ORDINANCES: 1681 26TH STREET

7-A: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2454 (CCS), entitled: “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND HINES 26TH STREET LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY”, was presented. Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES:

Councilmembers Holbrook, Davis, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor O’Connor NOES: Councilmembers McKeown, Winterer, Vazquez ABSENT: None STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SPECIAL JOINT MEETING FINANCIAL STATUS UPDATE

On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened to a special joint meeting with the Redevelopment Successor Agency and the Housing Authority, with all members present. 8-A: Financial Status Update and FY 2013-14 Midyear Budget recommendation that the City Council, Housing Authority, and Successor Agency to the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency: appropriate FY 2013-14 midyear expenditure and revenue budget adjustments and approve corresponding adjustments to the FY 2014-15 budget plan as detailed in Attachment A to the report; recommends that the City Council: receive the FY 2013-14 through FY 2017-18 Financial Status Update; adopt a policy to set aside funds to be used towards payments to CalPERS to reduce the City’s unfunded retirement liability; adopt Resolution No. 10799 (CCS) entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ESTABLISHING NEW CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADOPTING SALARY RATES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECT MANAGER, AIRPORT MANAGER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST, CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR, COMMUNICATIONS CENTER ADMINISTRATOR, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, OFFICE MANAGER TO THE CITY

5

February 11, 2014

MANAGER, PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/AIRPORT DIRECTOR, FORENSICS SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR, GRAPHIC DESIGN ASSISTANT, JAIL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR, LEAD ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER, LEAD CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, LEAD LEAD SOFTWARE SYSTEMS PUBLIC SERVICES OFFICER, ANALYST-PERMITTING, NETWORK CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANT, PARKING MANAGER, POLICE RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR, POLICE SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR, PUBLIC SERVICES OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICES OFFICER SUPERVISOR, PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION SPECIALIST, SOFTWARE SYSTEMS ANALYST – PERMITTING, URBAN FOREST CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, WATER PRODUCTION AND TREATMENT PLANT SUPERVISOR, ZERO WASTE ASSISTANT”; approve the position and classification changes detailed in Attachment C; adopt Resolution No. 10800 (CCS) entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA REVISING PORTIONS OF THE CITY’S SCHEDULE OF VARIOUS PERMIT AND USER FEES IN THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC WORKS, POLICE, FIRE, BIG BLUE BUS, FINANCE, COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL SERVICES, AND LIBRARY DEPARTMENTS” of the City of Santa Monica setting various rates and fees in Attachment D; authorize the City Manager to accept a grant award in the amount of $469,971 from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) New Freedom Funds for Door Through Door services for older adults and persons with disabilities, and to accept all grant renewals; authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute grant Agreement No. 9875 (CCS) with WISE & Healthy Aging, a California-based not-for-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $30,132 for the provision of New Freedom-funded attendant services for the Door Through Door program with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and receive public comment on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) Program funds, was presented. Member of the public Jerry Rubin spoke generally in favor of the recommended action. Member of the public Denise Barton spoke generally in opposition to the recommended action. Motion by Agency/Councilmember Winterer, seconded by Chair Pro Tem/Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, to move the staff recommendation, reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof, with additional direction to include the $15.50 living hourly wage in requests for

6

February 11, 2014

interest. Motion to amend by Agency/Councilmember McKeown, to leave the unfilled position in the City Clerk’s office as is, and add the half position as needed to the City Manager’s office. The motion was friendly to the maker and the seconder. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES:

Agency/Councilmembers Vazquez, Davis, Holbrook, Winterer, McKeown, Chair Pro Tem/Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Chair/Mayor O’Connor NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING

On order of the Chair/Mayor, the special joint meeting with the City Council, Redevelopment Successor Agency, and the Housing Authority was adjourned at 8:13 p.m., and the regular City Council meeting was reconvened, with all members present.

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL

8-B: Review and Approve the Conceptual Design of the Samohi Safe Routes to School Project – recommendation that the City Council: approve the conceptual design for the Samohi Safe Routes to School project; and, direct staff to complete construction drawings and release bids for construction for the Michigan Avenue/7th Street portion of the project, was presented. Members of the public Keith Hill, Jack Graham, Olive Sherman, Michael Lappen, Claire Goldberg, Marcos Santana, Angel Villasenor, Marcus Tappen, Esteban Ramos, Jean Armbruster, Jerry Rubin, Kevin Person, Addie Lloyd, Anya Sturm, Grace Phillips, Cris Gutierrez, Bryan Beretta, Cynthia Rose, Alison Kendall and Muhammad Yusuf Tosf, spoke generally in favor of the recommended action. Members of the public Karen Melick (donated time by Clare Thomas) and Phil Brock spoke generally in opposition to the recommended action. Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to location of bike lanes, potential sites for bike racks, traffic, and traffic light synchronization. Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, to adopt the staff recommendation with updated attachments as presented by staff. The motion was approved by the following vote:

7

February 11, 2014

AYES:

Councilmembers McKeown, Winterer, Holbrook, Davis, Vazquez, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor O’Connor NOES: None ABSENT: None NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY CONCEPT PLAN

Mayor Pro Tem O’Day was excused at 9:33 p.m.

8-C: Adoption of Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Greenway Concept Plan – recommendation that the City Council: approve the conceptual design of the Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Greenway; and, direct staff to pursue opportunities for priority and phased implementation through grants, community benefits, and capital projects, was presented. Mayor Pro Tem O’Day stated that he was recusing himself because he resides within 500 feet of the project area. He then left the Council Chambers for the evening. Members of the public Gloria Garvin (donated time by Paul Bailey), Oscar de la Torre (donated time by Maria Loya), Cris McLeod, Jeremy Stutes, Ellen Sevy, Diane Romo, and Christel Andersen spoke generally in favor of the recommended action without traffic diverters. Eric Weinstein, Brian Derro, Jossimar Fuentes, Cris Gutierrez, Gary Goren, Cynthia Rose (donated time by Bryan Beretta), Alison Kendall, Michael Brodsky, Eileen Schaubert, Eileen Schaubert, Kent Stumpell (donated time by Scott Sing), Barbara Filet, Michael Feinstein, and Phil Brock spoke generally in favor of the recommended action. Members of the public Fernanda Gray, Elliot Goldberg, Delores Sloan, David Gonzolas, Art Casillas, and Andrew Hoyer spoke generally in opposition to the recommended action. Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to daily car trip targets, use of easements by Michigan Avenue, public process and outreach, Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember Winterer, to adopt the staff report but leaving diverters in the toolbox but not to be installed unless expressly decided by the City Council, and to amend the staff report to include a more long range target of 1500 daily trips. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES:

Councilmembers Vazquez, McKeown, Mayor O’Connor None

8

Davis,

Holbrook,

Winterer,

February 11, 2014

ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem O’Day

COUNCILMEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS: AB 327

13-A: Request of Councilmember Winterer that the Council direct staff to advocate that the California Public Utilities Commission implement a 30 year transition period for changes to net metering contracts for existing solar electric facilities, as prescribed by AB 327, was presented. Christel Andersen spoke generally in support of the proposed action. Motion by Councilmember Winterer, seconded by Mayor O’Connor, to approve the request. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote, with all members present except Mayor Pro Tem O’Day.

ELLIS ACT

13-B: Request of Councilmember McKeown that the Council authorize staff and our Sacramento lobbyist to urge that Santa Monica be able to opt-in to potential Ellis Act reform, was presented. Christel Andersen spoke generally in support of the proposed action. Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to approve request. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote, with all members present except Mayor Pro Tem O’Day.

PUBLIC INPUT:

Members of the public Michael Toney, Denise Barton, Art Casillas, and Christel Andersen commented on various local issues.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:25pm, with Mayor Pro Tem O’Day absent.

ATTEST:

APPROVED:

Sarah P. Gorman City Clerk

Pam O’Connor Mayor

9

February 11, 2014

Item 3-A 3/18/2014 (NOT APPROVED) CITY OF SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2014 A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor O’Connor at 5:31 p.m., on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street. Roll Call:

Present:

Also Present:

Mayor Pam O’Connor Mayor Pro Tem Terry O’Day Councilmember Gleam Davis (arrived at 5:32 p.m.) Councilmember Robert T. Holbrook Councilmember Kevin McKeown Councilmember Tony Vazquez Councilmember Ted Winterer City Manager Rod Gould City Attorney Marsha Jones Moutrie City Clerk Sarah P. Gorman

CONVENE/PLEDGE

On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:31 p.m., with all members present except Councilmember Davis. Councilmember Vazquez led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

CLOSED SESSIONS

Member of the public Denise Barton commented on closed sessions.

Councilmember Davis arrived at 5:32 p.m.

On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 5:33 p.m., to consider closed sessions and returned at 6:52 p.m., with all members present, to report the following: 1-A: Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, Federal Aviation Administration and Michael P. Huerta, in his Official Capacity as Administrator of the FAA, United States District Court Case Number 2:31-CV 8046 JFW (VBKx) The City Attorney advised this matter was heard and no reportable action was taken.

1

February 25, 2014

1-B: Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54656.9(d)(1): Torres v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number SC 121 279 The City Attorney advised this matter was heard and no reportable action was taken. 1-C: Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54656.9(d)(1): Camarena v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 533 524 The City Attorney advised this matter was heard and no reportable action was taken. 1-D: Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Anticipate significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) – 1 case The City Attorney advised this matter was not heard. 1-E: Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54656.9(d)(1): Platkov, etc. v. City of Santa Monica, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 508 714 The City Attorney advised this matter was heard and no reportable action was taken. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS: WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

2-A: Proclamation Declaring March 2014 as Women’s History Month, was presented by Mayor O’Connor, and accepted by Anne Goeke and Sylvia Ghazarian of the Commission on the Status of Women.

TEEN DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS

2-B: Proclamation declaring February 2014 as Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month, was presented by Mayor O’Connor to Kandee Lewis and Tanisha Web of the Positive Results Corporation.

REPORT ON MEETING COMPENSATION

Pursuant to State law, City Clerk Sarah Gorman announced that Council will receive no compensation for meeting as the Redevelopment Successor Agency.

CONSENT CALENDAR: JOINT MEETING

There being a Consent Calendar each for the City Council and the Redevelopment Successor Agency, the Council convened to a joint meeting with the Redevelopment Successor Agency at 7:12 p.m., and the two

2

February 25, 2014

Consent Calendars were heard concurrently, with all members present. All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion. Members of the public Joy Fullmer and Christel Andersen commented on various Consent Calendar items. Motion by Chair Pro Tem/Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, seconded by Agency/Councilmember Winterer, to approve the Consent Calendar, reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES:

Agency/Councilmembers Vazquez, Davis, Holbrook, Winterer, McKeown, Chair Pro Tem/Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Chair/Mayor O’Connor NOES: None ABSENT: None MINUTES

3-A: Approval of minutes for the January 28 and February 4, 2014, City Council meetings, were approved.

WATER EFFICIENCY

3-B: Award Professional Services Agreement for Web-Based Software Application for Water Efficiency- recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute professional service Agreement No. 9878 (CCS) with WaterSmart Software Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $99,000 for the development, licensing, and maintenance of a web-based software application to track, compare and provide bi-monthly residential water use and efficiency measure reports, with two additional one-year renewal options for a total amount not to exceed $190,000 over a four-year period, with future funding contingent on Council budget approval, was approved.

MTA WESTSIDE/CENTRAL REPRESENTATIVE

3-C: Nomination of Santa Monica Candidate for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Westside/Central Service Sector Governance Council – recommendation that Council nominate David Feinberg from the Big Blue Bus for appointment to serve on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Westside/Central Service Sector Governance Council, was approved.

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY

3-D: Modification to Professional Services Agreement for the Engineering and Traffic Survey – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Professional Services Agreement No. 9752 (CCS) with Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. in the amount of $9,625 to provide Average Daily Traffic counts at 77 locations for the Engineering and Traffic Survey, resulting in a two-year

3

February 25, 2014

amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $89,625, was approved. ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

3-E: Contract Modification for the Advanced Traffic Management System, Phase 4C Project – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Construction Contract No. 9685 (CCS) with KDC, Inc., dba Dynalectric, in the amount of $55,578 to provide additional construction services for the Advance Traffic Management System, Phase 4C Project, resulting in a one-year amended construction contract not to exceed $1,475,578, and authorize any necessary changes within contract authority, was approved.

CEMETERY PERPETUAL 3-F: Contract modification for Investment Management Services for the Cemetery and Mausoleum Perpetual Care Funds – recommendation CARE FUNDS to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a third modification to Professional Services Agreement No. 9039 (CCS) with RNC Genter Capital Management, to provide investment management services of the Cemetery and Mausoleum Perpetual Care Funds, extending the term of the agreement for an additional three months for a total term of five years and three months. It is estimated that fees for the contract extension period will be approximately $15,000, was approved. FRANCHISE AGREEMENT

3-G: Resolution of Intention to Set a Public Hearing for a First Reading of an Ordinance Granting a Franchise Agreement to Crimson California Pipeline, L.P. for a Crude Petroleum Pipeline – recommendation that City Council adopt Resolution No. 10801 (CCS) entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DECLARING ITS INTENT TO GRANT A FRANCHISE TO CRIMSON CALIFORNIA PIPELINE, L.P. TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN AN EXISTING CRUDE PETROLEUM PIPELINE THROUGH THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA”, was adopted.

CITY INVESTMENT POLICY

3-H: Annual Update on City Investment Policy – recommendation that City Council and the Successor Agency Governing Board: Review and approve the City’s revised Investment Policy; Extend investment authority to the Director of Finance as the City and Successor Agency Treasurer, from March 1, 2014 through February 28, 2015; and : “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND USE OF BANK AND BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS AND UPDATING THE LIST OF PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT TRANSACTIONS WITH THE STATE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND”, and : “A RESOLUTION OF THE SANTA MONICA REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND USE OF BANK AND BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS AND UPDATING THE LIST OF PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT TRANSACTIONS WITH THE STATE

4

February 25, 2014

LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND NUMBER 6519064”, was approved and adopted.

FOR LAIF ACCOUNT

ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING

On order of the Chair/Mayor, the special joint meeting with the City Council and the Redevelopment Successor Agency adjourned at 7:24 p.m., and the regular City Council meeting reconvened, with all members present.

STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: CHAIN REACTION

8-A: Next steps for Chain Reaction sculpture by Paul Conrad – recommendation that City Council: 1) Recognize the community’s fundraising efforts and accept funds in the amount of $101,290 to support the restoration of Chain Reaction; 2) Authorize the expenditure of up to $75,000 to complete additional testing as required by the City’s Building Official to address remaining areas of concern regarding the structural stability of the work; 3) Authorize staff to proceed with development of a plan to restore the work, based on the findings and conclusions of the additional testing, including the development of a landscape barrier around the work; and appropriate the budget increases, was presented. Members of the public Jerry Rubin, Marissa Rubin, Dave Conrad, Cris Guiterrez, Kit Dreyfuss, Marc Morgenstern, Cindy Bendat, Narda Zacchino, Peter Scheer, Joshua Needle, Robert Berman, Brian C. Moss, Randy Ziglar, Katie Oran, Julian Apter, Robert Donin, Leslie Lambert, Carol Lemlein, Ken Koslow, Ken Kutcher, Carol Wells, Ruthann Lehrer representing the Landmarks Commission, Bruce Campbell, Stuart Muller, Christel Andersen, Roger Genser and Paul Rosenstein spoke generally in favor of the recommended action. Members of the public Denise Barton and Charles Follette spoke generally in opposition to the recommended action. Discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to support of public art and costs of support. Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember Vazquez, to approve the staff recommendation and provide staff direction to have that the landscape barrier function as a physical barrier but not provide visual blockage, using a peace garden as an example. Motion to amend by Mayor O’Connor, as treat the project as the City treats all landmarks in Santa Monica, including applying rehabilitation standards of the Secretary of the Interior to the project. The motion was accepted as friendly by the maker and seconder. The motion was approved by the following vote:

5

February 25, 2014

AYES:

Councilmembers Vazquez, Davis, Holbrook, Winterer, McKeown, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor O’Connor NOES: None ABSENT: None BERGAMOT STATION ARTS CENTER

8-B: Bergamot Station Arts Center Exclusive Negotiating Agreement – recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement No. 9879 (CCS) with 26Street TOD Partners LLC (“Development Team”) to develop the City-owned property located at 2525 Michigan Avenue, home to the Bergamot Station Arts Center, was presented. Members of the public Lew Wolff, Elsa Longhauser, Claire Ruud, Asuka Hisa, Elizabeth Pezza, Gail Katz, and Lynda Dorf spoke generally in favor of the recommended action. Members of the public Denise Barton, Francis Engler, William Turner (donated time by Meier Shadi), Greg Reitz, Laura Korman, and Christel Andersen spoke generally in opposition to the recommended action. Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to parking, preservations of galleries, public engagement, and process. Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember Winterer, to direct staff to answer Council’s questions and gather input from the galleries, Arts Commission, and other stakeholders with a goal to return to Council within 30-60 days. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES:

Councilmembers McKeown, Winterer, Holbrook, Davis, Vazquez, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor O’Connor NOES: None ABSENT: None AFFORDABLE HOUSING

8-C: Affordable Housing Funding and Policy – recommendation that the City Council: 1) Direct staff to continue exploration and analysis of placing a ballot measure or measures on the November 2014 ballot related to creating a local, dedicated funding source for affordable housing; 2) authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Contract No. 9794 (CCS) with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) in an amount not to exceed $27,800 to conduct additional voter surveying regarding potential affordable housing ballot measures in November 2014; 3) Introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending Section 9.56 of the Municipal Code (Affordable Housing Production Program) to establish minimum occupancy standards for affordable housing;

6

February 25, 2014

and 4) Approve revisions to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Guidelines to require affordable housing funded by the City to provide preferences for accessible units to persons living with disabilities, was presented. Members of the public Neal Richman and Sarah Letts spoke generally in favor of the recommended action. Members of the public Denise Barton and Christel Andersen spoke generally in opposition to the recommended action. Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to sources for affordable housing funding. Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to direct staff to continue exploration and analysis of placing a ballot measure or measures on the November 2014 ballot related to creating a local, dedicated funding source for affordable housing; and to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Contract No. 9794 (CCS), with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) in an amount not to exceed $27,800 to conduct additional voter surveying regarding potential affordable housing ballot measures in November 2014. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers McKeown, Winterer, Davis, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor O’Connor NOES: Councilmembers Holbrook, Vazquez ABSENT: None Councilmember Holbrook stated he voted no because the city previously had proceeded with adopting measures to create new sources of income that affected persons equally, including the hotel bed tax. If anybody in Santa Monica chose to have friends and relatives stay in a hotel, they would pay that tax. And people voted for it, and it would be distributed to anyone who chose to do that. Mostly, it is people from out of town that stay in the hotels. The fact of the matter is, it would affect everyone equally. So, because this is a tax which would only affect a small proportion of the voters, compared to the vast majority of the voters it would not affect, he thought it was a mistake. Councilmember Vazquez stated that he voted no while he is ok with the tax, his issue is with the polling company. He had a bad experience and he just doesn’t feel like the City should fund them, and could use a lot better firm. Motion by Councilmember Holbrook, seconded by Councilmember Winterer, to introduce ordinance for first reading, reading by title only and

7

February 25, 2014

waiving further reading thereof, amending Section 9.56 of the Municipal Code (Affordable Housing Production Program) to establish minimum occupancy standards for affordable housing. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES:

Councilmembers Vazquez, Davis, Holbrook, Winterer, McKeown, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor O’Connor NOES: None ABSENT: None

Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember Winterer, to approve revisions to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Guidelines to require affordable housing funded by the City to provide preferences for accessible units to persons living with disabilities. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES:

Councilmembers McKeown, Winterer, Holbrook, Davis, Vazquez, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor O’Connor NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember Holbrook, to provide staff direction to explore the possibility of providing affordable housing to artists with special infrastructure needs. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote, with all members present. COUNCILMEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS: HOUSING COMMISSION

13-A: Request to declare Betty Mueller’s seat on the Housing Commission vacant and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy, was presented. There was no one present for public comment. Motion by Mayor O’Connor, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, to declare Betty Mueller’s seat on the Housing Commission vacant and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy. The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

PUBLIC INPUT:

Members of the public Denise Barton and Johnathan Foster commented on various local issues.

8

February 25, 2014

ADJOURNMENT

On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m. in memory of Richard James Ulrich and Shirley Temple.

ATTEST:

APPROVED:

Sarah P. Gorman City Clerk

Pam O’Connor Mayor

9

February 25, 2014

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 3-B To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Dean Kubani, Manager, Office of Sustainability and the Environment

Subject:

Modification to Professional Services Agreement with ConserveTrack LLC

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a fourth modification to Professional Services Agreement 1651 in the amount of $114,635 with ConserveTrack, LLC, a California-based company, to continue providing licensing, hosting, support and maintenance for the ConserveTrack web-based software system to track and report water-saving projects and programs. This is a sole source professional services agreement. This will result in a three year amended agreement and two-year renewal option for a total of 11 years with a new total amount not to exceed $179,635, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. Executive Summary Since 2009, the City has used the ConserveTrack data management software system to track and report on the City’s water conservation projects and programs including rebates, audits, ordinance violations and citations. The costs for ConserveTrack include the licensing, hosting, support and maintenance of the web-based software system. This fourth modification to the agreement with ConserveTrack LLC in the amount of $114,635 for a total amount not to exceed $179,635 for a total of 11 years through 2019 is to continue providing this data management system for use by Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE) and Code Compliance Division.

Background In 2004 staff from the Information System Department and Office of Sustainability and the Environment researched web-based software systems designed to track and report water-savings projects and programs. On February 9, 2009 the City entered into a sole source professional services agreement with RightThere, Inc. for the development and licensing of the ConserveTrack software system that allows staff to track waterefficiency projects and programs, including rebates, direct installations, audits, outreach campaigns, violation warnings and citations. RightThere, Inc.’s propriety software, 1

ConserveTrack, is a web-based database system that generates reports which include estimated and actual water savings for each customized water conservation program. This software system is uploaded with water customer account information each month to keep the data up-to-date.

The original agreement included two services: the development and licensing of the ConserveTrack software and the post-development maintenance. The total contract amount was $21,598. The development and licensing portion of the contract totaled $16,200. The maintenance portion of the contract was for one year post development with nine optional renewals for $5,388 each year. The software development was completed in 2010 and included customized modules and reports for the City’s water conservation programs. The maintenance contract began in 2011. Because the maintenance portion of the contract did not include the total amount for 10 years and only listed the annual fee of $5,388, the default total became $5,388.

In order to continue to use ConserveTrack and pay for additional annual maintenance fees, the agreement needed to be modified to increase the total amount. In addition the City’s ability to provide fast and reliable web-hosting was not achieved. The first modification in 2012 increased the term of the contract to seven years in a total amount not to exceed $65,000 and transferred the web hosting from the City to RightThere, Inc. The second modification changed the name of the company from RightThere, Inc., a California Corporation, to ConserveTrack, a sole proprietorship. The third modification changed the name of the company from ConserveTrack, a sole proprietorship, to ConserveTrack LLC, a limited liability corporation. Because the total amount never exceeded $70,000 the original agreement and first through third modifications did not require Council authorization.

2

Discussion Since 2009 the ConserveTrack system has been used daily to help manage the City’s water conservation projects and programs. Staff enters the following data to track: applicants participating in landscaping and rainwater harvesting rebates; audits related to the Green Business Certification Program; high water use complaints; and outreach. In the past ConserveTrack was used to track compliance certificates issued for the Retrofit Upon Sale Ordinance and to track warning letters and citations issued by OSE for violations of the water conservation, urban runoff and leaf blower ordinances. On July 1 2013, the Code Compliance Division of the Planning and Community Development Department took over the enforcement of those ordinances. Code Compliance staff would use ConserveTrack to track these violations until the Accella software program already purchased by the City is fully operational in approximately two years and capable of providing tracking and reporting services for code violations.

In addition to tracking the water conservation projects and programs, ConserveTrack can generate detailed reports that include estimated and actual water savings. These reports are used by staff to report on goals and to comply with grant reporting requirements and bi-annual state reporting requirements.

ConserveTrack continues to expand services and functionality to better suit the evolving needs of the City’s water conservation projects and programs. Because the total cost of continuing to use ConserveTrack would exceed $70,000, staff is recommending a fourth modification of the professional services agreement with ConserveTrack LLC to continue

providing

the

licensing,

hosting,

support

and

maintenance

of

the

ConserveTrack data management system. The professional services agreement fees for ConserveTrack include software system licensing, hosting, support and maintenance in the amount of $17,472 per year with a rate increase based on the Consumer Price Index or at minimum one percent. The total amount of the contract including the original development, licensing, web hosting and maintenance would be $179,635 over 11 years. 3

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The fourth agreement modification to be awarded to ConserveTrack LLC is $114,635 for a modified agreement not to exceed $179,635. Funds in the amount of $52,400 are included in the FY 2013-14 budget in division 226, the agreement will be charged to account 01226.555060.88272. Additional year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

Prepared by: Kim O’Cain, Sustainability Analyst Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

Dean Kubani Sustainability Manager

Rod Gould City Manager

4

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 3-C

To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Dean Kubani, Manager, Office of Sustainability and the Environment

Subject:

Apply for three grants to improve ocean water quality and augment the local water supply and adopt a resolution to apply for one of the grants.

Recommended Action Staff recommends that City Council: 1. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the application for grant funds in the amount of $500,000 from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grant program to demonstrate an urban runoff harvesting project for non-potable irrigation at Ozone Park. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to apply for and accept grants from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the amount of $65,000 for marine debris education and outreach, from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s WaterSMART Program in the amount of $500,000 for a stormwater harvesting and irrigation use demonstration project at Ozone Park, and from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the amount of approximately $50,000 for designing the stormwater harvesting system at Ozone Park, if awarded; and 3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report. Executive Summary The City has the opportunity to apply for three federal grants to improve local ocean water quality and comply with federal water quality requirements, and to augment local water supply to reach the City’s water self-sufficiency goal. Santa Monica is a signatory to the Santa Monica Bay Marine Debris Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and must implement strategies to eliminate trash and debris inputs

into Santa Monica Bay. The City would apply for a $65,000 federal marine debris educational grant to produce educational materials to assist the City in meeting the TMDL regulations. The City is nearing completion of a Sustainable Water Master Plan to make Santa Monica water self-sufficient by 2020, which includes many demand reduction and supply augmentation strategies. Increasing local water supply is one important strategy. The City would apply for a $500,000 Federal WaterSMART water efficiency grant to construct an urban runoff harvesting and irrigation use demonstration project. To support the design of the WaterSMART project, the City would apply for a third federal grant specifically for engineering design for approximately $50,000. Discussion National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Educational Grant The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the Santa Monica Bay Marine Debris TMDL on March 20, 2012, requiring municipalities to eliminate all debris (trash and plastic pellets) entering the Bay by March 20, 2020. As a signatory to the debris TMDL in the Bay’s offshore and nearshore waters, the City is required to implement structural and non-structural strategies to reduce to zero debris entering the Bay. An implementation schedule lists tasks and deadlines to comply with the TMDL. Staff from Public Works and the Office of Sustainability and the Environment are developing a plan to install full capture structural devices to meet the zero debris requirement. A full capture device is one which removes all anthropogenic materials 5 mm and larger. Anything smaller is allowed to pass through the storm drain system and into the Bay.

Structural systems are effective at removing debris and trash already released into the storm drain system.

However, these systems require annual cleaning and

maintenance, which can be expensive over time.

A less expensive, non-structural

strategy that helps to reduce cleaning and maintenance costs is to change people’s behavior to reduce or eliminate littering through education and outreach.

This grant, if awarded, would help fund a comprehensive educational outreach program to inform the public about the negative consequences of trash and plastic pollution on marine fauna and solutions to improve water quality to meet the TMDL’s requirements.

Staff recommends that Council approve the submission of a grant application to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Prevention through Education grant program to help fund an educational outreach project. The NOAA marine educational grant would provide the City with matching funds to develop a comprehensive program with numerous strategies to reach out to those segments of the population most prone to litter.

The present estimated cost for this educational outreach project is $136,114. The grant requires a minimum 100% match of the requested grant amount. The City is requesting a $65,000 grant.

Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Water Efficiency and EPA Design Engineering Grants On March 8, 2011, staff presented a study session on achieving water self-sufficiency. Council requested that staff produce a sustainable water master plan (SWMP) to achieve water self-sufficiency by 2020.

One of the SWMP’s supply portfolio strategies presented to Council on May 14, 2013, includes increasing local water supplies, which could include harvesting dry weather runoff and stormwater for beneficial uses. These two grants would help fund a project to demonstrate the effectiveness of urban runoff harvesting, including dry weather runoff and stormwater, for non-potable irrigation use.

WaterSMART Water Efficiency Grant The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) WaterSMART Program establishes a framework to provide federal leadership and assistance on the efficient use of water, integrating water and energy policies to support

the sustainable use of all natural resources. Through this program, Reclamation is working to achieve a sustainable water strategy to meet the nation’s water needs. With WaterSMART Water Efficiency Grants, Reclamation provides cost-sharing funding on a competitive basis for projects that focus on improving water and energy efficiency to reduce demand on limited water resources and to promote sustainable water use.

Staff recommends that Council approve the submission of a grant application to WaterSMART to help fund an urban runoff harvesting and irrigation demonstration project at Ozone Park. The project would divert and harvest dry weather urban runoff and stormwater from the storm drain running under the park. Harvested runoff would be treated and stored for park irrigation, replacing the use of potable water. This project would help maximize local water supply and minimize imported water supplies, and help the City reach its goal for water self-sufficiency.

The present estimated cost for this demonstration project is $1,352.606. The grant requires a minimum 100% match of the requested grant amount. The City is requesting the grant’s maximum amount of $500,000.

EPA Design Engineering Grant The EPA Office of Wastewater Management’s Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Program provides assistance to help communities overcome the most significant barriers to green infrastructure, and to develop innovative approaches to implementation that meet multiple environmental, social and economic goals. Green infrastructure uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage water and create healthier

urban

environments.

At

the

neighborhood

or

parcel

scale, green infrastructure refers to stormwater management systems that mimic nature by storing water for onsite beneficial use. This program provides a municipality with a design engineering consultant to formulate a green infrastructure solution to a local urban runoff water quality and supply challenge.

Staff recommends that Council approve the submission of a green infrastructure technical assistance grant application to help fund the Ozone Park urban runoff project referred to in the previous section. This grant would defray much of the project design cost to hire an engineering consultant.

The grant does not require a match. The final grant amount would depend upon how many municipalities apply to this program. The 2014 assistance program has $400,000 budgeted; EPA expects to assist 5-7 communities.

Therefore, the individual grant

would likely be between $50,000 and $80,000 per city.

The WaterSMART grant is the only grant requiring a resolution.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions NOAA Marine Debris Educational Grant The total amount of grant funds requested from the Department of Commerce’s NOAA Marine Debris Prevention through Education and Outreach is $65,000. If awarded, the grant requires a 100 percent local match, or $65,000, which staff would divide over the next two fiscal year budgets, FY 2014-15 and 2015-16, in division 226. Of the match, $50,000 would be included in account 01226.522540, and the remaining $15,000 would be made up of in-kind staff and volunteer time.

If awarded, revenue and expenditure budgets would be established in division 20226 for FY 2014-15 for the awarded grant amount. If renewals are awarded, budget changes would be included in subsequent year budgets, pending Council budget adoption.

Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Water Efficiency Grant The total amount of grant funds requested from the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Water Efficiency Program is $500,000 and the grant requires a 100% match, or $500,000. If awarded, revenue and expenditure budgets would be established in division 20226 and a capital improvement account in the Miscellaneous Grant Fund, respectively, for the awarded grant amount. An additional

appropriation would be established for the match in a capital improvement account in the Stormwater Fund (34) using funds restricted for capital projects. Establishing the expenditure budget would require a release of funds from the Stormwater Parcel In Lieu Fee restricted cash account. If awarded, staff would return to Council to request these budget changes, pending Council approval.

EPA Engineering Design Grant The total amount of grant funds requested from the Environmental Protection Agency is dependent upon the number of grants awarded by EPA. If awarded, the grant would be in the range of $50,000-80,000. There is no local match required. If awarded, no budget changes are required as all grant expenditures would be paid by the EPA.

Prepared By: Neal Shapiro, Senior Administrative Analyst Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

Dean Kubani Sustainability Manager

Rod Gould City Manager

Attachment 1: Resolution

City Council Meeting March 18, 2014

Santa Monica, California

RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE WATERSMART WATER AND EFFICIENCY GRANT AND THE EXECUTION OF GRANT DOCUMENTS WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

WHEREAS, on January 25, 2011, the City Council directed staff to produce a Sustainable Water Master Plan to achieve water self-sufficiency by 2020; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, provides annual grant funding through a program entitled "WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants" (“Grant") to promote water efficiency and sustainable water management; and WHEREAS, this resolution certifies the City Council’s approval of the City’s application for grant funding for the Grant; and WHEREAS, the grant funding will assist the City to achieve its sustainability goals and implement the Sustainable Master Water Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica hereby approves the City’s application for a Grant in the amount of $500,000 to the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 to promote water efficiency and sustainable water management. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica authorizes the City Manager or his designee to submit an application for the Grant and to negotiate and execute any documents related to this Grant, including a grant application and cooperative agreement, to accept financial assistance from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. SECTION 3. If the application for the Grant is approved, the City of Santa Monica has the capability to provide matching grant funds and/or in-kind contributions specified in the grant requirements. SECTION 4. The City of Santa Monica will work with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, to meet established deadlines for entering into a cooperative agreement. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________ MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE City Attorney

2

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 3-D To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works

Subject:

Bid Award for Purchase of Metal Refuse/Recycling Bins

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council award Bid #4101 to Consolidated Fabricators Corp., a California-based company, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for FY 2013-14 for the purchase of 2 and 3-yard metal refuse/recycling bins, with two one-year options to renew at the same price, terms and conditions, for a total award amount not to exceed $296,000 over a three-year period, with future year funding contingent upon Council budget approval.

Executive Summary In October 2013, the City solicited bids for the purchase of 2 and 3-yard metal refuse/ recycling bins. After reviewing the three bids received and conducting performance tests on the bin samples received, staff recommends Consolidated Fabricators Corp. to provide metal bins for a total not to exceed amount of $296,000 over a three-year period.

Discussion The City container replacement program provides for the ongoing replacement of 2 and 3-yard metal bins used for the storage of solid waste and recycling material for collection by the Resource Recovery & Recycling (RRR) Division. More than 4,000 two and three-yard bins are used throughout the City on a daily basis.

On March 19, 2013, Council authorized a modification to the agreement with Ball, Bounce and Sports, Inc. for the purchase of plastic bins in order to meet operational demands, since the metal bin supplier contract had been cancelled due to the business being sold. That staff report advised that although the plastic bins were more desirable due to their design and safety features, staff would evaluate the need to purchase metal bins in the future. 1

Staff has reviewed the collection operations needs and has determined that a need still exists for metal bins in the City. The metal bins have a smaller width and footprint, which allows for placement in smaller enclosure areas or at alley locations where space is more compact. The purchase of the metal bins would enable the City to replace approximately 150 metal bins annually or 1,200 bins over an eight-year replacement program cycle. This is approximately 30% of all the 2 and 3-yard bins used in the City.

The projected bin

total is an estimated value based on previous year’s usage, the need to maintain stock in inventory, and the rental bin (Rent-A-Bin) program which is used frequently by residents.

Approximately $50,000 would be required for purchases of metal refuse/recycling bins through the end of FY 2013-14.

Purchases for additional years are estimated at:

$95,600 for FY 2014-15; $95,600 for FY 2015-16; and $54,800 for FY 2016-17 (through March 2017), for a total award amount not to exceed $296,000.

Vendor Selection In October 2013, the City published Notices Inviting Bids to provide 2 and 3-yard refuse/recycling bins as required by Resource Recovery & Recycling in accordance with City specifications. The bid was posted on the City’s on-line bidding site, and notices were advertised in the Santa Monica Daily Press in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code provisions.

There were 354 vendors notified and 24 vendors

downloaded the bid. Three bids were received and publicly opened on October 30, 2013 per Attachment A.

The bids were evaluated on price, experience, performance

testing, proximity to the City, and compliance with City specifications.

The lowest

bidder, Kelcor, did not submit a sample for performance testing as required by the specifications. Consolidated Fabricators Corp., the second lowest bidder, met all the requirements of the specifications. Based upon these criteria, Consolidated Fabricators Corp. is recommended as the best bidder for the purchase of 2 and 3-yard refuse/recycling metal bins in accordance with City specifications. 2

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The purchase order to be awarded to Consolidated Fabricators Corp. is for an amount not to exceed $50,000 through the end of FY 2013-14. Funds are included in the FY 2013-14 Capital Improvement Program budget in account C270227.589000. Budget authority for subsequent years will be requested in each budget cycle for Council approval. Future funding is contingent upon Council approval. Prepared by: Kim Braun, Resource Recovery and Recycling Manager

Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

Martin Pastucha Director of Public Works

Rod Gould City Manager

Attachments: A – Bid Summary

3

Attachment A Bid #4101 ‐ Purchase of Metal Refuse/Recycling Bins Wastequip MFG. Co. LLC Charlotte, North Carolina

Consolidated Fabricators Van Nuys, California

Kevin Kelly (Kelcor) Ramona, California

Pricing 2 Yard Bins 

Response

Response

Response

1

Quad Channels (Bottom and Side)

$542.00 Each

Not Required 

$507.00 Each

2 3 4 5

Bottom Channels Side Channels Delivery Charge per Unit Delivery Charge per Truck Load

$507.00 Each $509.00 Each Included in unit prices Included in unit prices

$553.00 Each Not Required * $16.43 Included in Price $460.00 

$30.00 Each Set $30.00 Each Set

6

Other

Item

Prices do not include SST. *If Side  Channels were added‐ they need to be at  80" OD for a front (BR) loading truck to  pick up the bin 3 Yard Bins 

Response

Response

Response

7

Quad Channels (Bottom and Side)

$626.00 Each

$598.00 Each

$557.00 Each

8 9 10 11

Bottom Channels Side Channels Delivery Charge per Unit Delivery Charge per Truck Load

$588.00 Each $591.00 Each Included in unit prices Included in unit prices

$567.00 Each $567.00 Each $17.03 Included in Price $460.00

$30.00 Each Set $30.00 Each Set

Item

12

Other

Prices are based on Truck load ordered.  Please see attached sketches of proposed  containers. Note that all bins will be  primed interior and exterior, exterior of  contianer to be painted Alkyd enamel  paint (BR)‐ Santa Monica green and have  the City's bead weled at top rear. There  are no exceptions to the bid. 

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 3-E To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Edward F. King, Director of Transit Services

Subject:

Purchase of Cummins Engine Replacement Parts

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council award Bid #4124 to Cummins Pacific, LLC, a California-based company, in an amount not to exceed $600,000 for the purchase and delivery of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Cummins Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) engine replacement parts, with two additional one-year renewal options in the amount of $1,200,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1,800,000 over a three-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council approval and budget adoption. Executive Summary Staff recommends award of bid to Cummins Pacific, LLC for the purchase and delivery of OEM Cummins CNG engine replacement parts used to maintain and repair the Big Blue Bus fleet at specified unit prices plus applicable sales tax. The award of the bid will enable the City to maintain the engines to OEM recommendations to ensure that emission standards are maintained as intended by the manufacturer and that expected engine lifecycle intervals are achieved. The total expenditure for the three-year term is $1,800,000. Background Cummins CNG gas engines are environmentally friendly engines that produce 95% less harmful exhaust gases than diesel operating engines. They are electronically controlled to optimize fuel usage and to generate the least amount of harmful pollutants. To maintain these engines in the manner intended, they must be serviced per manufacturer recommendations. The award of this bid to Cummins Pacific enables the Big Blue Bus to maintain the Cummins CNG engines to OEM standards, thereby ensuring reliability. Discussion The City’s fleet of transit buses requires routine engine maintenance and repair. To ensure proper engine performance and compliance with state and federal emission rules and regulations, the Big Blue Bus purchases genuine Original Equipment 1

Manufacturer (OEM) parts. The Cummins natural gas engines have several hundred parts which make up the engine. Obtaining OEM engine parts will enable the Big Blue Bus to service and maintain the engine to manufacture specifications and ensure proper efficient and effective operation. Vendor Selection In January 2014, the City published Notices Inviting Bids to provide Cummins OEM parts as required by the Big Blue Bus in accordance with City specifications. The bid was posted on the City’s on-line bidding site, and notices were advertised in the Santa Monica Daily Press in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code provisions. Seventeen vendors downloaded the bid. Three bids were received, including one “No Bid” response in which the vendor stated that they downloaded the specification to review everything listed and then realized that they could not provide any of the parts. The two completed bid proposals were evaluated on price, references, experience, and compliance with City specifications. Based on comparison of cost per part, percentage of discount off list price and positive history with vendor, Cummins Pacific, LLC is recommended as the best bidder to provide Cummins OEM parts in accordance with City specifications.

2

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The purchase order amount to be awarded to Cummins Pacific, LLC, for the three-year term is $1,800,000. Funds in the amount of $150,000 are included in the FY 2013-14 Capital Improvement Program budget at account C410106.589000. Future year funding is contingent upon Council approval. Prepared by: Getty Modica, Transit Maintenance Officer Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

Edward F. King Director of Transit Services

Rod Gould City Manager

Attachments: Attachment A, Cummins OEM Parts Bid Results

3

Bid No.: 4124 Bid Description: Provide Cummins OEM parts as required by the Big Blue Bus Bid Closing Date: January 28, 2014

Item

Part No.

Description

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

3289279 4942430 5271773 391851 5310989 3975150 5286681 5287082RX 3926842 68138 3944525D 5284106 4089216 3932063 3934686 3968266 3916051 3973087 3937456 3934486 5296050 4955850 3991240 3900976 3929159 3613547 4955125 3607945 3929935 4001675 4954893 4921485 4984929 4921479 3978022 3973819 3976834 4934537 4089445 3933846 4997684 3931710 3102928

44

Other

Item

Supplemental Questions Vendor must have a minimum of five years' experience in supply and delivery of genuine OEM Cummins engine parts and supplies. Vendor must have the ability to furnish and deliver genuine OEM Cummins engine parts and supplies. Vendor must be a certified dealer/distributor of genuine OEM Cummins engine parts and supplies.

45 46 47

Belt- tensioner drive/WTR pump Belt- water pump Clamp-air fuel control

Estimated Annual Usage 10 20 5 5 250 100 5 5 5 5 5 25 8 30 25 2 20 30 25 25 5 2000 25 20 50 10 10 10 8 40 30 25 5 5 20

5 3 3 3 5 30 8 4

48

Percentage discount off manufacturers list price on items no listed.

49

Warranty Terms Do you come into City of Santa Monica Property to perform your service?

50 51

Do you deliver parts and/or products in your own company vehicle?

52

Will you be able to comply with the business license requirements for the City of Santa Monica?

Cummins Pacific LLC Irvine, California New Cost

Manufactured Cost

$48.65 $34.11 $2.61 $8.13 $113.41 $113.41 $2,598.75 $1,040.00 $63.88 $7.11 $130.00 $496.23 $1,350.00 $17.28 $46.97 $1,174.18 $59.67 $1,221.76 $389.03 $61.98 $1,263.01 $32.19 $55.53 $125.55 $13.78 $42.23 $204.43 $152.67 $801.90 $483.66 $154.11 $199.09 $261.13 $233.94 $111.77 $107.71 $93.11 $439.90 $1,909.00 $463.27 $1,052.89 $623.13 $457.05 Part (5310990 superseded p/n) for item #6(p/n 3975150) that is obsolete Response

Los Angeles Whittier, C Unit Price $50.47 $35.34 $2.70 $8.44 $118.30 $118.30 $2,692.31 $1,082.25 $66.18 $7.37 $932.71 $514.10 $1,398.60 $17.90 $100.47 $1,224.83 $61.92 $1,274.46 $40.31 $64.30 $1,317.50 $51.95 $57.62 $117.18 $14.28 $43.75 $213.24 $159.25 $836.49 $504.52 $160.76 $206.58 $272.39 $244.03 $115.97 $111.76 $68.64 $458.87 $1,991.34 $479.94 $1,098.30 $650.01 $476.76 Part (5286677RX) for it 3944525D) that is obs page for e Resp

Meets qualifications

Meets qua

Meets qualifications

Meets qua

Meets qualifications

Meets qua

28% approximately 1 year on NSW and R

Manufacture list price We will offer c 12 mo

Yes

Ye

Yes

N

Can Comply

Can Co

53 54 55

Will you be able to comply with the insurance requirements for the City of Santa Monica? Year 2 Renewal Options Year 3

Can Comply 3.5% Increase of previous year's price 3.5% Increase of previous year's price

Can Co Prices are subj Prices are subj

Freightliner California Extended Price

tem number 11# (p/n solete* see additional exceptions onse alifications alifications alifications es are not consistent. cost plus 15%. onths es o omply

omply ject to change ject to change

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 3-F To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works

Subject:

Second Agreement Modification with Cedarwood- Young, Inc. d/b/a Allan Company for Recycling Processing Services and First Agreement Modification with Southern California Disposal for Transfer and Hauling Services

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to service agreement 9012 (CCS) with Cedarwood-Young, Inc. d/b/a Allan Company to reflect changes in the scope of services outlined in this report. 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to service agreement 9011 (CCS) with Southern California Disposal to reflect changes in the operation outlined in this report. Executive Summary In November 2008, Allan Company entered into a service agreement with the City to provide recycling processing services for the City’s recycling collections operations as well as operate a drop-off recycling facility within the City limits open to the public. An integral part of the agreement was for Allan Company to operate the proposed Resource Recovery Center to be built by the City. In November 2008, Southern California Disposal entered into a service agreement with the City to provide transfer and hauling services of the City’s mixed waste, green waste, food waste, construction and demolition debris, street sweeping and other acceptable materials. As part of the agreement, Southern California Disposal would operate the proposed Self-Haul Facility to be constructed as part of the proposed Resource Recovery Center. In December 2011, staff recommended that the Resource Recovery Center and the Self-Haul Facility not be constructed due to operational and cost issues, and that Council direct staff to develop a new material processing plan with Allan Company and Southern California Disposal. 1

The Allan Company service agreement included transitional provisions pending the completed construction of the new facility. Allan Company is currently operating under the transitional requirements of the service agreement, which are not representative of the current operating environment. The Southern California Disposal Agreement is pending authorization to negotiate a modification to the existing service agreement. Staff is recommending that Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate modifications to both agreements in order to reflect changes in current operating services with both contractors and to continue to negotiate terms of a new processing plan. Background On November 25, 2008, Council approved a public/private partnership with Allan Company.

The service agreement included processing of all recyclable materials

collected curbside, the continuation of a buy back center and a 24 hour drop off area for recyclable materials. During the transitional period, the operation would continue in the existing location (Santa Monica Community Recycling Center) and move to the new Resource Recovery Center after it was constructed.

In February 2010, the first

modification to the service agreement was issued modifying the hours of operation on Saturdays.

On November 25, 2008, Council approved a public/private partnership with Southern California Disposal. This service agreement included the transfer and hauling services of the City’s mixed waste, green waste, food waste, construction and demolition debris, street sweeping and other acceptable materials.

On December 6, 2011, Council approved staff’s recommendation to cancel the design and construction of the Resource Recovery Center and the Self-Haul Facility at the City Yards due to costly construction estimates and operational issues, and directed staff to develop a new materials processing plan in conjunction with Allan Company and Southern California Disposal.

Discussion Allan Company’s existing service agreement is not in full effect until a notice to proceed is issued. This notice would have been issued after the Resource Recovery Center was 2

fully operational (construction cancelled in December 2011). During the transitional period (between execution and the notice to proceed), Allan Company has continued to provide recycling services under the former operations agreement 6053 (CCS).

Allan Company Agreement Modification The modification to Allan Company’s existing agreement would include but not limited to the following options: •

Per Ton Rate Increase: Allan Company would continue to pay the City a per ton rate of $35.00 per ton for all commingled recycled materials collected curbside and delivered to Allan Company for processing, representing an increase from the base contract rate of $27.50 per ton. The $35.00 per ton rate for mixed recyclable materials would increase effective January 1st of each year in accordance with percentage increases, if any, in the Consumer Price Index as published at www.bls.gov/cpi for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange area, and shall mean the percentage increase in the cost of living index as measured by the Consumers Price Index for All Urban Consumers, less Energy for the 12 month period November to November of the prior year.

•

Electronic Waste: Allan Company would pay the City market value for electronic waste materials. Allan Company agrees to collect all electronic waste from the City and the residents of Santa Monica at no charge. For the purposes of this amendment, Electronic Waste shall include, but not be limited to: computers, televisions, DVD players, VCR’s, computer and electronic peripherals, fax machines, scanners, printers, gaming controls, and other electronic equipment containing a circuit board or power cord. The City would accept the current market value price being offered to the public for eligible electronic waste as set by Allan Company’s posted door price. Allan Company agrees to accept any and all electronic waste materials received from City sponsored electronics waste collection events and pay the City posted door price for these materials. The City agrees that Allan Company can select its own electronic waste recycler for city generated electronic wastes that conform to City criteria.

•

Scrap Metal and White Goods: Allan Company would continue to purchase scrap metal and receive white goods from all sources. Allan Company would continue to pay the City for scrap metals and white goods delivered by the City.

•

Loose Plastics: Allan Company would continue to receive loose plastics (refuse carts) from the City and the public. Allan Company would pay the City for scrap plastics delivered by the City.

•

Host Fee: Allan Company would pay the City a host fee in the amount of $2.00 per ton for each ton of recyclables processed and recovered by Allan Company’s Santa Monica operations regardless of the source of recyclables, subject to annual escalation by the CPI. 3

•

Rent Increase: Allan Company would pay an annual rent increase for the property leased at the City Yards for recycling processing operations. The monthly lease payment shall be increased annually by a factor equal to the difference in the Los-Angeles Riverside Orange County Consumer Price Index for Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the twelve month period November to November of the prior fiscal year.

•

Residual Trash Cost Recovery: The City would pay Allan Company for the residual trash from City collected recyclable materials delivered to the Contractor above a designated percentage threshold determined by both Allan Company and the City on a quarterly basis.

•

Transition Term: The City would negotiate the transition term of the existing service agreement which would remain in effect until June 30, 2015 at which time the City would propose to deliver a minimum of six months’ notice to vacate property if the City determines that the contract will not be renewed for another term. If notice to vacate is not delivered by June 30, 2015, the City would continue to deliver a minimum of six months’ notice to vacate property on a rolling six month calendar year until a definitive date is determined.

•

Original Signing Bonus: Because the Resource Recovery Center was not constructed, the City would refund the original signing bonus of $526,000 that Allan Company contractor paid to the City upon execution of the original service agreement less any costs that Allan Company has due and payable to the City for annual rent increases and legacy trash costs.

Southern California Disposal Agreement Modification Southern California Disposal’s service agreement is not in full effect until a Notice to Proceed is issued. This notice would have been issued after the Self-Haul Facility (construction cancelled in December 2011) was fully operational. Beginning December 2011, the City closed its transfer station and began utilizing the services of Southern California Disposal in accordance with the original service agreement. The modification to the existing agreement would include but not limited to negotiating the new processing plan and a notice to proceed. The Notice to Proceed would include the following payment options in accordance with the original agreement as well as additional service options: •

CPI increase effective January of Each Year: The annual CPI adjustment shall be increased effective January 1st of each year in accordance with percentage increases, if any, in the Consumer Price Index as published at www.bls.gov/cpi for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange area, and shall mean 4

the percentage increase in the cost of living index as measured by the Consumers Price Index for All Urban Consumers, less Energy for the 12 month period November to November of the prior year. •

Monitor Loads at Southern California Disposal: In addition, the City would monitor a variety of loads tipped from the City’s curbside collection program at Southern California Disposal’s Transfer Station to insure that the City is meeting its disposal and recycling residual requirement with the City’s approved processing facilities. The approximate amount per ton for the residual trash is $27.66 depending on the final disposal site and annual processing and disposal fee adjustments at these various locations.

•

Fuel Service Calculation: The City would negotiate the average fuel price, fuel index multiple, hauling price fuel component and the base fuel rate. The monthly surcharge fuel rate would adjust each month based on calculations determined by both the City and Southern California Disposal.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions Financial impacts are unknown at this time pending negotiations of the new agreements. However, the City may need to reimburse Allan Company a maximum of $526,000 for the original signing bonus as a result of the negotiations because the Resource Recovery Center was not constructed. The original signing bonus was not spent and is available in the FY 2013-14 operating budget in division 27441. Funds in the amount of $526,000 to reimburse Allan Company are included in the FY 2013-14 budget at account number 27441.555010.

Prepared by: Kim Braun, Resource Recovery & Recycling Manager

Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

Martin Pastucha Director of Public Works

Rod Gould City Manager

5

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 3-G To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Jory Wolf, Chief Information Officer

Subject:

Purchase of Mobile Computers for the Fire Department

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council award Bid #4127 for the purchase of mobile data computers for the Fire Department to Lehr Automotive, a California-based firm in the amount of $275,000.

Executive Summary The Fire Department uses mobile data computers to communicate with dispatch and others, access critical information, and document reports and view pre-incident plans. Current equipment has reached its end of life and is neither compatible with current software nor supported by the vendor. Therefore, staff recommends replacing these devices with current equipment. To do this, staff recommends award of Bid #4127 to Lehr Automotive for the purchase of mobile data computers at a cost of $275,000, which includes five years of maintenance, accidental damage protection, and installation services.

Background The Fire Department currently uses mobile data computers in all of its emergency response vehicles to better respond to emergencies.

These computers allow

responders to communicate with the dispatch center and others, access critical information, complete necessary reports and view pre-incident plans.

The Fire

Department has been using such equipment to aid in responding to emergencies for over ten years.

Discussion The current equipment, implemented in 2006, has reached its end-of-life and is no longer supported by the vendor. Typically, the computers would be replaced every five 1

years. However, the Fire Department was able to extend the life cycle of the existing computers by two years. Today, the aging equipment is unable to support software presently used by the department. Therefore, the equipment must be replaced to ensure it is reliable and operational for Fire personnel. Vendor Selection In January 2014, the City published a Notice Inviting Bids to provide mobile data computers, accessories and installation services to the Santa Monica Fire Department in accordance with City specifications. The bid was posted on the City’s online bidding site, and notices were advertised in the Santa Monica Daily Press in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code provisions. There were 1,167 vendors notified and 77 perspective vendors requested the bid documents. A job walk occurred on February 4, 2014 and two vendors attended.

One bid was received and publicly opened on

February 13, 2014. The bid required the installer to be a Motorola Premier Service Provider as the Fire Department wanted to ensure that the installer be qualified to work on all electronic components of the vehicle including Motorola radios. Lehr Automotive chose to sub-contract the installation work to the closest Motorola Premier Service Provider to Santa Monica, Advanced Electronics. The bid was evaluated based on the price, quality, and compliance with City specifications and requirements as specified in the bid. The other bidder did not submit a bid as they were unable to source all of the required components. Based on these criteria, Lehr Automotive is recommended as the best bidder to provide mobile data computers in accordance with City specifications.

2

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The purchase order amount to be awarded to Lehr Automotive is for an amount not to exceed $275,000. Funds are available in the FY 2013-14 Capital Improvement Program budget in account C018019.589000, Mobile Data Computer Replacement.

Prepared by: Benjamin M. Steers, Systems Analyst – Public Safety Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

Jory Wolf, Chief Information Officer Information Systems Department

Rod Gould City Manager

3

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 3-H To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development

Subject:

Sublease of Retail Space at 223 Broadway

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a sublease agreement with Washington Earth Spa, LLC for the retail space at 223 Broadway that would extend through June 30, 2017, in accordance with the terms described in this report. Executive Summary The City leases retail space at 223 Broadway for the Big Blue Bus transit customer information store. The current lease term expires June 30, 2017 with an option to terminate earlier on June 30, 2015. Big Blue Bus (BBB) staff is interested in subleasing the space and relocating the customer service function housed there. Washington Spa, LLC, a beauty bar retailer, (Sublessee) has submitted a proposal to sublease the entire 845 square feet (sq. ft.) of space through the lease term of June 30, 2017 at an initial rate of $13.00 per sq. ft. with periodic increases.

Background On January 24, 2006, Council authorized execution of a five-year lease with extension options for 845 sq. ft. of retail space at 223 Broadway for the BBB transit customer information center (Transit Store). BBB staff sells bus passes and merchandise and assists bus riders with trip planning. The store also serves as a central distribution site for bus schedules and other BBB information. Additionally, BBB uses the Transit Store as its primary call center. On August 23, 2011, Council authorized execution of the First Modification to Lease No. 8549 for the BBB Transit Store to modify the term, rental rate and rate for annual adjustments.

At its October 8, 2013 meeting, Council

authorized execution of a sublease with California Love, LLC for 223 Broadway. However, the company changed its business plans and did not complete the sublease 1

agreement. The broker continued to market the space and was able to find another interested subtenant.

Discussion While the downtown location has been ideal for the Transit Store, BBB staff is interested in subleasing the retail space for the remainder of the lease term as a cost-saving measure. The Transit Store would maintain its easily accessible downtown presence by relocating into the Central Parking office located in ground-floor retail space within Parking Structure No. 5 located at 1444 4th Street.

This is an ideal colocation

opportunity for BBB to maintain a counter presence for selling transit fare media. Central Parking is open 24 hours per day, seven days per week and has committed to selling BBB fare media during BBB’s off hours. In addition, the office is centrally located Downtown, just around the corner from the existing Transit Store location on Broadway. The new location is ADA accessible. BBB expects to maintain the same level of customer service Downtown with the relocation to 4th Street.

In addition, BBB plans to add a customer service location at City Hall in 2014 with a customer service phone and computer to access the trip planning “Route Wizard”. Furthermore, as BBB launches various customer service tools over the next year, customers will have online access to a new fare collection system through the web portal and eventually through mobile applications. As a result, BBB envisions fewer patrons purchasing fare media at the physical storefront outlets. These collective changes will improve BBB customer service options while generating operational savings for BBB. To assist with tenant recruitment to sublease the space, staff conducted a request for qualifications process (RFQ) to solicit the professional services of a commercial real estate broker. The RFQ was advertised on the City’s online bidding site and on the Housing and Economic Development Department website. Five brokers submitted statements of qualifications, three were interviewed, and staff selected and entered into a professional service agreement with commercial broker Craig Zund of Corporate 2

Realty Group. Through the efforts of Mr. Zund, Washington Earth Spa, LLC a Nevada based Limited Liability Company, doing business as Lionesse Beauty Bar, has submitted a proposal to sublease the entire 845 square feet of retail space.

The sublease would commence upon execution of a sublease agreement at a lease rate of $13.00 per sq. ft. and the sublease would be subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Master Lease. The proposed sublease price per square foot is $1.86 higher than BBB’s current lease rate of $11.14 per sq. ft. The property owner, as part of the consent for the City to sublease the space, is requiring that the Sublessee pay the rent directly to them but BBB may be able to capture a portion of those revenues to cover transaction costs. The City would provide the Sublessee two months of rent abatement as a tenant allowance. The Sublessee would be responsible for meeting all of the terms and conditions of the City’s lease including the common area maintenance and utility expenses, as well as incur the cost of removing the tenant improvements at the end of the lease term. Subleasing the retail space at 223 Broadway would result in net expenditure reductions of approximately $125,000 to $150,000 for the BBB through FY 2016-17, depending on the final sublease terms and projected savings from tenant improvement removal. It is expected that the sublease agreement would be executed effective April 1, 2014.

Alternatives Council could decide not to approve a sublease agreement for the retail space at 223 Broadway. BBB would maintain the lease and exercise its option to terminate early on June 30, 2015.

This option would not generate any cost savings for BBB.

Exercising the option at the early termination date of June 30, 2015 would result in continued lease payments totaling approximately $144,500 and Common Area Maintenance (CAM) fees of approximately $26,700.

3

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions Implementing this recommendation would result in net expenditure reductions of approximately $125,000 to $150,000 for the BBB through FY 2016-17. BBB would continue to make lease payments as budgeted in the amount of $18,826 for the remainder of FY 2013-14 and the one-time broker payment would be $25,289 in FY 2013-14.

Funds are available in the FY 2013-14 Capital Improvement Program

budget at account C410749.589000.

Prepared by: Erika Cavicante, Sr. Development Analyst

Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

Andy Agle, Director Housing and Economic Development

Rod Gould City Manager

4

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 3-I To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

David Martin, Planning and Community Development Department Director

Subject:

Amendment to Provide Additional Scope of Work for the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Contract No. 9687 in the amount of $170,000 with AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., a professional environmental consulting company based in Washington D.C., to provide additional environmental consulting services for the Downtown Specific Plan and Program Environmental Impact Report. This will result in a two-year amended contract with a new total amount not to exceed $771,000. Executive Summary On January 22, 2013, the City entered into contract no. 9687 with AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. in the amount of $601,000 to prepare the Downtown Specific Plan Program EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The initial contract was funded by a grant from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. A contract modification of $170,000 would provide for additional scope of work in support of completing the Downtown Specific Plan and Program EIR. Background On August 1, 2012, the City of Santa Monica was awarded grant funding by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) in the amount of $601,000 to complete environmental clearance for the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). A program level Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) is required by State of California law in order to consider adoption of the draft DSP.

On January 22, 2013, the Council accepted the Metro grant for preparation of the DSP Program EIR and approved a contract with AMEC for $601,000 to prepare the DSP

1

Program EIR. The City Council has reviewed components of the Downtown Specific Plan and the CEQA parameters to be studied in the EIR at public meetings on February 28, 2012, July 9, 2013 and August 13, 2013.

Discussion Preparation of the DSP Program EIR began in January 2012. During the course of the DSP planning effort, elements of the DSP and CEQA parameters were refined in response to community, Council and Planning Commission input resulting in the need for an expanded scope of work for the DSP Program EIR. An amendment to the contract is needed to complete the remaining required tasks in the scope such as responding to comments received during the public review period, and making any necessary revisions.

Additionally, since the preparation of the DSP Program EIR

began, additional coordination and meetings beyond what was originally scoped have been required between the City and AMEC to address key community issues of concern. This contract modification would provide additional resources for AMEC to attend future meetings and hearings in conjunction with the DSP. Completion of the DSP EIR is required by State law prior to consideration of adoption of the final DSP, and provides an important public information and review process that complements the two years of outreach that has been done on the Downtown Specific Plan. The expanded scope of work exceeds the original grant amount of $601,000; as such, the additional work in the amount of $170,000 will be primarily funded by the Prop A capital reserve funds set aside for Expo related capital projects as the DSP will provide for planning efforts related to the Expo LRT Downtown Station.

Contractor Selection On September 25, 2012, a Request for Proposals for preparation of a Downtown Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) was issued to three qualified firms on the City’s Pre-Qualified list of environmental consultants. Based on the selection criteria in SMMC 2.24.072 as well as the firm’s demonstrated knowledge of the City and CEQA, strong record of preparing legally defensible environmental

2

documentation in the City and other jurisdictions, comprehensive scope of work, and flexible approach, AMEC was selected as the best bidder to provide environmental consulting services for the DSP.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The contract modification amount to be awarded to AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. is $170,000 for an amended contract total not to exceed $771,000. Funds are available as in the FY2013-14 Capital Improvement Program budget in the following accounts:

C200224.589065

Expo Station Area Planning

$140,000

P017015.589000

Travel Demand & Nexus Study

$ 30,000

Total

$170,000

Prepared by: Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner

Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

David Martin Director, Planning and Community Development

Rod Gould City Manager

3

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 3-J To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

David Martin, Director of Planning and Community Development

Subject:

Funding Modification for the Real-Time Beach Parking Project

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report. Executive Summary The City received approval from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to use $57,121 of Transportation Development Credits (Toll Credits) in December 2013 for the construction of Real-Time Beach Parking Project. In February 2014, the City received notice from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) that Toll Credits cannot be applied to this project. Staff recommends the budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report to reduce the encumbrance at account C207005.589200 (STPL Fund) in the amount of $57,121 and to encumber an amount of $57,121 at account C017024.589000 (Traffic Mitigation Fund). Background Previous Council Actions On January 14, 2014 Council authorized a contract with Select Electric, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,503,754 for the construction of the Real-Time Beach Parking Project. This included the use of $57,121 in Toll Credits.

Discussion The City received a $533,000 grant from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to install signs that would display real-time parking information available to motorists destined for Santa Monica beach parking lots. The 1

grant specifies that the $533,000 comes from the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program and an additional $286,000 must be provided through City local match funds. The grant funds are from the Federal CMAQ program. Additionally, $346,500 in State of California Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) funds were secured for the project. In January 2013, the City received the authorization to proceed with construction activities from Caltrans.

Since the project is already using federal funds and is ready for construction, the use of federal Surface Transportation Program Local (STPL) funds was approved by Metro and SCAG in December 2013.

The original approval to proceed with construction

activities from Caltrans did not include the use of STPL or Toll Credits. In addition to the STPL funds, Metro and SCAG also approved the use of $57,121 in Toll Credits. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the source of Toll Credits, which are administered by Caltrans. FHWA allows the use of Toll Credits to offset a portion or all of the agency’s local match requirement for federal projects. In February 2014, the City was notified by Caltrans that the Toll Credits cannot be applied to this project citing FHWA policy that prohibits “the retroactive use of Toll Credits on a phase of work that has received federal authorization.” Funding and accounting adjustments need to be made to the budget in order to encumber the correct amount of federal funds and allocate the proper general funds. The $57,121 of Toll Credits must be transferred from the STPL fund to an existing General Fund account as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report. Funding is available in the General Fund to absorb the additional cost related to the disallowance of the Toll Credits.

2

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The funding modification for the Real-Time Beach Parking Project requires the following FY 2013-14 budget changes: 1. Reduce revenue budget at account 20416.40839Y in the amount of $57,121. 2. Reduce expenditure budget at account C207005.589200 (STPL Fund) in the amount of $57,121. Funds in the amount of $57,121 are available in the FY 2013-14 Capital Improvement Program budget at account C017024.589000 (Traffic Mitigation Fund).

Prepared by: Andrew Maximous, P.E., T.E., Transportation Engineer

Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

David Martin, Director Planning and Community Development

Rod Gould City Manager

3

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 3-K To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Gigi Decavalles-Hughes, Director of Finance

Subject:

Auditing Services for the City of Santa Monica

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to Professional Services Agreement #9373 in the amount of $44,000 with Macias Gini & O’Connell, a California-based company, to provide financial auditing services. This will result in a five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $797,281, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Executive Summary The City of Santa Monica engages an independent auditing firm to audit its financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and to perform agreed-upon procedures in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. In 2011, the firm of Macias, Gini and O’Connell was selected through a competitive process to provide these services for up to a five-year term. Since that time, the dissolution of Redevelopment and the implementation of new Governmental Accounting Standards Board standards has necessitated additional work. Staff recommends modifying the agreement to include that work. This would result in a new five-year not to exceed amount of $797,281.

Background The City engages an independent auditing firm to perform an examination of the City’s basic financial statements as well as an examination of the City’s Redevelopment Agency financial statements, the City’s Big Blue Bus (BBB) Fund financial statements, the City’s Air Quality Improvement Program, and the City’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Single Audit). The Auditor also performs agreed-upon procedures to test and report on the City’s GANN appropriation limit calculation. At its May 10, 2011 1

meeting, Council awarded a contract with Macias Gini & O’Connell in a five-year amount of $675,000 to perform these services.

On November 13, 2012, Council authorized a modification to the agreement in the amount of $78,281 to perform due diligence reviews for the Successor Agency.

Discussion The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has implemented changes that affect the City’s auditing process and therefore require additional work by Macias Gini & O’Connell: 1. GASB 65 – Establishes accounting standards that reclassify certain items previously classified as assets and liabilities. This will require additional review to ensure that the City is compliant with the new standards. 2. GASB 68 – Modifies the reporting of pension obligations.

In addition to ensuring compliance with the new GASB requirements, Macias Gini & O’Connell was requested to re-test the National Transit Database Agreed Upon Procedures for the BBB as a result of discrepancies within the Transit Master System utilized by the Big Blue Bus.

This additional work is necessary to ensure that City remains in compliance with GASB standards and is necessary to complete the annual audit process. The additional work outlined above would increase the five-year agreement by an amount not to exceed $44,000.

2

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The agreement modification to be awarded to Macias Gini & O’Connell is $44,000, for an amended agreement total not to exceed $797,281. Funds are available in the FY 2013-14 budget in division 01222; the contract will be charged to account 01222.577040.

Prepared by: Yiannis Kalaitzidis, Financial Operations Manager Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

Gigi Decavalles-Hughes Director of Finance

Rod Gould City Manager

3

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 3-L To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development

Subject:

Sublease of Space at 1630 17th Street

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to: 1. Negotiate and execute a sublease agreement with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District for the space at 1630 17th Street, beginning April 1, 2014 and extending through August 31, 2021, in accordance with the terms described below. 2. Authorize the budget changes outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report.

Executive Summary In 2011, the City leased space at 1630 17th Street to serve the Print Shop and Mail Room. The lease has an expiration date of August 31, 2021. Staff has determined that it would be more cost efficient to sublease this space and relocate the Print Shop and Mail Room to the City Corporation Yards located at 2500 Michigan Avenue (Corporate Yards). The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) has submitted a proposal to sublease the entire 4,528 square feet (sq. ft.) of space through the lease term of August 31, 2021 at an initial rate of $2.00 per square foot with periodic rent increases.

Background In 2011, the City entered into a lease at 1660 Lincoln Boulevard for 12,000 sq. ft. to be used for Big Blue Bus warehouse needs, as well as the City’s Print Shop and Mail Room, which is part of the Records and Elections Department. The Print Shop and Mail Room began sharing 3,723 sq. ft. of the leased area in 2002. On November 23, 2010, in anticipation of a reduction in space needs following Big Blue Bus’ relocation to its new campus, Council approved an addendum to the lease to reduce the leased space to 1

3,723 sq. ft. to solely accommodate the Print Shop and Mail Room, as well as change the lease term to month-to-month.

On April 9, 2013, Council approved amending the Print Shop and Mail Room’s lease agreement at 1660 Lincoln Blvd., its existing location, to extend its lease term to March 31, 2014 and to provide a month-to-month lease option.

Discussion In 2010, the Print Shop needed to relocate from the leased premises at 1660 Lincoln Blvd. because the owners were selling the building. On August 31, 2011, the City executed a ten-year lease with STG Three Properties, LLC located at 1630 17th Street for 4,528 sq. ft. of space for the Print Shop and Mail Room. However, during the design phase of the tenant improvements for the 1630 17th Street space, staff developed a new strategic plan for operations and determined it would be more cost efficient for the Print Shop and Mail Room to relocate into the City Corporation Yards located at 2500 Michigan Avenue. The City is currently leasing two spaces, 1660 Lincoln Blvd. as well as 1630 17th Street, for the Print Shop and Mail Room operations. As a cost-saving measure, the City is interested in subleasing the space at 1630 17th Street for the remainder of the lease term.

To assist with tenant recruitment to sublease the space, staff conducted a request for qualifications process (RFQ) to solicit the professional services of a commercial real estate broker. The RFQ was advertised on the City’s online bidding site and on the Housing and Economic Development Department website. Five brokers submitted statements of qualifications and three were interviewed. Staff selected and entered into a professional service agreement with commercial broker Anthony Chamberlain of CB Richard Ellis. Through the efforts of Mr. Chamberlain, the SMMUSD, an existing tenant in the business park, has submitted a proposal to sublease the entire 4,528 sq. ft. of space. At the same time, Mr. Chamberlain received a second proposal to lease the entire space from an architectural firm, but the terms were not as favorable. 2

The sublease with SMMUSD would commence upon execution of a sublease agreement at a rate of $2.00 per sq. ft. and the sublease would be subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Master Lease. The proposed sublease price per square foot is $0.15 above the City’s current lease rate per sq. ft. of $1.85, which would offset the City’s cost for the real estate brokerage service and the offer to provide the sub-tenant two months of rent abatement as a tenant improvement allowance. The sub-tenant would be responsible for meeting all of the terms and conditions of the City’s lease including the common area maintenance and utility expenses. Subleasing the space at 1630 17th Street would result in net expenditure reductions of approximately $985,000 for the City through the end of the lease term, FY 2021-22.

Alternatives Council could decide not to sublease the space at 1630 17th Street. The City would maintain the lease through its expiration date of August 31, 2021. This option would not generate any cost savings and would result in continued lease payments totaling approximately $835,000 and Common Area Maintenance (CAM) fees of approximately $160,000.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions Implementing this recommendation would result in net expenditure reductions of approximately $985,000 for the City through FY 2021-22. The City’s total projected rent and common area maintenance fees through FY 2021-22 are an estimated $995,000. Under the sublease, expenditures for rent and brokerage fees would be almost entirely offset by sublease revenue.

The City would continue to make lease payments as

budgeted in the amount of $25,185 in FY 2013-14 and the one-time broker payment would be $43,568 in FY 2013-14.

3

Funds are available the FY 2013-14 budget in division 214; expenditures would be charged to account number 01214.522620. Fiscal Year 2013-14 revenues would be deposited at account number 01214.400774. Staff would include associated FY 201415 revenue and expenditure budget changes for Council approval with the FY 2014-15 exception-based budget. Budget authority for future budget years would be requested in each budget for Council approval. Future funding is contingent upon Council approval and budget adoption.

Prepared by: Erika Cavicante, Sr. Development Analyst

Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

Andy Agle, Director Housing and Economic Development

Rod Gould City Manager

4

City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 4-A

To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Rod Gould, City Manager

Subject:

Results from 2014 Resident Survey on Future Development

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council review and comment on the results from the 2014 Resident Survey on future development. Executive Summary City Council requested that staff conduct a resident survey on matters related to future development. Godbe research was commissioned to conduct the survey. This Study Session will discuss results from the 2014 Resident Survey on future development, including in-depth information on resident opinions on the issues. Background The City of Santa Monica conducts telephone surveys of Santa Monica residents to assess resident satisfaction with City services, as well as occasionally surveying voters’ attitudes about possible revenue options aimed at addressing critical needs. Council requested that staff conduct a resident opinion survey on matters related to future development at the May 29, 2013 Budget Study Session meeting, and authorized funding for this purpose at the June 25, 2013 Budget Adoption meeting. A competitive request for proposals was issued in June and July of 2013 to conduct a resident survey on matters related to future development. On September 24, 2013, Council authorized a professional services agreement with Godbe Research, a California-based company, in an amount not to exceed $32,135 to conduct a resident opinion survey on future development.

1

Discussion Godbe Research was commissioned to conduct the survey. Staff requested and the League of Women Voters-Santa Monica agreed to participate as an impartial observer in the survey development process to monitor staff work with the consultant to ensure objectivity. The survey was designed to: • Assess residents’ overall perceptions of the City of Santa Monica • Gather feedback on the downtown and Bergamot plans • Assess community benefit priorities for all development projects • Gauge land use priorities • Understand preferences on urban form and aesthetics • Identify any differences in residents’ opinions due to demographic characteristics Godbe Research conducted a total of 500 telephone interviews of adult residents (18 and older). The error rate is plus or minus 4.4% for the sample. Interviews were conducted from January 11 through January 20, 2014. The average interview time was approximately 22 minutes. Twenty-two interviews were conducted in Spanish. The attached report provides in-depth information on resident opinions. The results will be presented by the consultant directly to Council in public session. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Prepared By: Kathryn Vernez, Deputy City Manager, Special Projects David Martin, Planning and Community Development Director Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

Rod Gould City Manager

Rod Gould City Manager

Attachments: A) Overview & Key Findings B) Full Report 2

Attachment B

GODBE RESEARCH 2014 Development Survey Full Report

The full report is available for download at http://www.smgov.net/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=46504

Hard copies are available at the following locations: 1)

Main Library – 601 Santa Monica Blvd Santa Monica, CA 90401

2)

City Clerk’s Office – 1685 Main Street Suite 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401

3

City of Santa Monica: 2014 Development Survey February 2014

Overview and Research Objectives The City of Santa Monica commissioned Godbe Research to conduct a survey of local adult residents with the following research objectives:  Assess residents’ overall perceptions of the City of Santa Monica;  Gather feedback on the downtown and Bergamot plans;  Assess Community Benefit priorities for all development projects;  Gauge land use priorities;  Understand preferences on urban form and aesthetics; and  Identify any differences in residents’ opinions due to demographic characteristics.

Page 2 February 2014

Methodology Overview  Data Collection

Telephone Interviewing

 Universe

77,523 adult residents (18 years and older) in the City of Santa Monica.

 Fielding Dates

January 11 through January 20, 2014

 Interview Length

22 minutes

 Sample Size

500 Twenty-two interviews were conducted in Spanish.

 Margin of Error

± 4.4%

The observations highlighted in the narrative of this report are based on the findings uncovered in the statistical significance testing, which is shown in the detailed crosstabulations for the specific question being addressed and more fully explained in Appendix B. Note: The data have been weighted to reflect the actual population characteristics of adult residents in the City of Santa Monica in terms of their gender, age, ethnicity and home ownership.

Page 3 February 2014

Key Findings – Santa Monica Climate Questions

Q1. Opinion on the Direction of Santa Monica (n=500) Survey respondents were first asked for their opinion about the direction in which the City of Santa Monica was going. About two in five residents indicated they felt the City was headed in the right direction, while almost one in five said they felt it was staying the same. One-third stated they felt the City was going in the wrong direction, with five percent indicating that they either did not know or had no opinion on the subject.

DK/NA 5.7% Wrong direction 33.9%

Right direction 41.7%

Staying the same 18.7%

Page 5 February 2014

Q1. Opinion on the Direction of Santa Monica Age Comparisons The table below shows opinion broken down by age groups. Generally speaking, the younger residents were more likely to state they felt the City was headed in the right direction. However, responses trended toward the opinion that the City was going in the wrong direction in the older age groups. While the 18-to-24-year-olds were more likely to be optimistic about the direction of the City and those ages 35 and older were more pessimistic, the 25-to-34-year-olds more frequently gave the response “Staying the same.”’

Age 18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Right direction

81.7%

52.7%

50.1%

33.1%

29.3%

28.2%

22.9%

Prefer not to say 2.8%

Staying the same

7.7%

36.3%

13.1%

9.6%

27.4%

9.5%

17.3%

2.8%

Wrong direction

.0%

7.2%

28.2%

53.4%

40.9%

59.2%

54.6%

64.9%

10.6%

3.8%

8.6%

3.9%

2.4%

3.1%

5.1%

29.4%

n=500

Don't know/Refused

Page 6 February 2014

Q1. Opinion on the Direction of Santa Monica Ethnicity Comparisons When the results are viewed in terms of ethnicity, Latino/Hispanic residents had a higher tendency to indicate they felt the City was going in the right direction. Conversely, Asian-American and Caucasian/White residents were more likely to report they felt the City was headed in the wrong direction.

n=500 Right direction

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 55.7% 50.0% 34.6% 75.2% .0% 69.1%

Two or more races 32.9%

10.9%

Don't know/ Refused 9.0%

Other

Staying the same

8.4%

12.2%

19.2%

19.0%

4.8%

30.8%

56.0%

12.9%

.0%

Wrong direction

30.0%

30.4%

40.0%

5.8%

95.2%

.1%

7.8%

34.7%

84.5%

Don't know/Refused

5.9%

7.5%

6.2%

.0%

.0%

.0%

3.2%

41.5%

6.5%

Page 7 February 2014

Q2. Most Liked Features About Downtown (n=500) When asked in an open-end format what features other than the weather residents most liked about downtown Santa Monica (in the area around the 3rd Street Promenade), one third said “Restaurants/Shopping/ Entertainment,” followed closely by “Nice/Clean/Vibe of area/Upscale.” Slightly more than one in ten residents indicated “Walkability of area” as their most liked feature. All other responses garnered less than ten percent mentions. 33.9%

Restaurants/Shopping/Entertainment 28.6%

Nice/Clean/Vibe of area/Upscale 10.9%

Walkability of area

8.5%

Beach/Close to ocean/Bike paths

7.6%

Accessibility/Bus/Rail/Subway coming 3.9%

General mention of Promenade Safe

2.8%

Good parking

2.7% 1.7%

Tourist/Revenue

0.9%

Library

2.5%

Nothing

2.1%

Don't go there/Crowded

6.7%

Don't go there/Much/Don't like

6.3%

Other mention

0.3%

Undecided/Need more information

2.3%

DK/NA/Unsure

0%

20%

40% Page 8 February 2014

Q3. Least Liked Features About Downtown (n=500) Again, in an open-end format, residents were asked what they liked least about downtown. Two out of five residents said “Traffic/Congestion.” About one in six respondents indicated “No parking/Expensive to park,” while approximately one in ten gave the responses “Overdeveloped/Chain stores/High rise building,” “Crowded,” and “Homelessness/People panhandling/Crime” as their least liked features. All other responses garnered fewer than ten percent mentions. 41.3%

Traffic/Congestion No parking/Expensive to park Overdeveloped/Chain stores/High rise building Crowded Homelessness/People panhandling/Crime Tourist/Not for locals Expensive area Not enough shopping/Unique shops Street performers Dirty Bike traffic Apartment building/Ugly buildings Not enough trees/Open space/Restrooms Nothing/No dislike of area Dislike everything of area Don't go there/Much Other mention DK/NA/Unsure

17.4% 12.4% 11.7% 11.6% 4.6% 3.9% 1.4% 0.9% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 6.9% 0.3% 0.5% 4.2% 1.5% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50% Page 9 February 2014

Key Findings – Height

Q4. Seen, Heard or Read About DSPF (n=500) Next, the survey respondents were asked whether they had seen, heard or read anything about the Santa Monica Downtown Specific Plan Framework. In response, more than half of the respondents indicated they had not, while about a third said they had some exposure to the Plan.

DK/NA 4.9% Yes 36.7%

No 58.3%

Page 11 February 2014

Q4. Seen, Heard or Read About DSPF Zip Code Comparisons When analyzed in terms of zip code of residence, respondents in the 90401 and 90403 zip codes were more likely to indicate that they had heard, read or seen information about the Downtown Specific Plan Framework. Residents of the 90404 zip code were most likely not to be aware of the plan.

n=500

90401

90402

90403

90404

90405

Yes, seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework

49.8%

32.9%

48.5%

20.3%

38.2%

No, have not seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework

32.3%

62.8%

47.2%

77.8%

57.5%

Don't know/Refused

17.9%

4.3%

4.3%

1.9%

4.4%

Page 12 February 2014

Q4. Seen, Heard or Read About DSPF Living East or West of 20th Street Comparisons Respondents living west of 20th Street were more likely to indicate they had seen, heard or read about the Downtown Specific Plan Framework. Alternatively, those who live east of 20th Street more frequently reported that they had no exposure to the Plan.

n=267 Yes, seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework No, have not seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework Don't know/Refused

Live East or West of 20th Street East of 20th West of 20th Don't know/ Street Street Refused 25.5% 41.0% 16.9% 74.5%

55.0%

54.3%

.0%

3.9%

28.7%

Page 13 February 2014

Q4. Seen, Heard or Read About DSPF Ethnicity Comparisons African-American/Black and Caucasian/White residents more frequently reported having seen, heard or read about the Plan, whereas Asian-American and Latino/Hispanic respondents said they had not had any exposure to the Plan.

n=500 Yes, seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework No, have not seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework Don't know/Refused

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or more races

Other

Don't know/ Refused

67.7%

13.8%

42.6%

12.8%

95.2%

69.2%

25.7%

47.4%

61.8%

26.3%

80.1%

52.1%

84.3%

4.8%

30.8%

74.3%

52.6%

29.4%

6.0%

6.1%

5.3%

2.9%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

8.8%

Page 14 February 2014

Q5. Support for Height Limits in DSPF (n=500) Next, the survey respondents were asked whether they supported or opposed the height limits proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan. Total support for the height limits was 71.1 percent (“Strongly support” 49.9% and “Somewhat support” 21.2%), while total opposition registered at 22.7 percent (“Strongly oppose” 13.0% and “Somewhat oppose” 9.7%).

Strongly oppose 13.0%

DK/NA 6.1%

Somewhat oppose 9.7%

Strongly support 49.9%

Somewhat support 21.2%

Page 15 February 2014

Q6. Support for 3 Hotel Height Proposals (n=500) When the respondents were next asked to indicate their level of support or opposition for three pending hotel proposals that would exceed the height limit in exchange for community benefits, opposition was slightly higher than support. Total support was 39.5 percent (“Strongly support” 24.2%, “Somewhat support” 15.3%), in contrast with total opposition at 46.2 percent (“Strongly oppose” 36.6%, “Somewhat oppose” 9.6%). Nearly one in ten residents indicated that their response would depend on the height of the proposed hotels.

Depends of height 8.2%

Strongly oppose 36.6%

DK/NA 6.1%

Strongly support 24.2%

Somewhat support 15.3% Somewhat oppose 9.6%

Page 16 February 2014

Q6. Support for 3 Hotel Height Proposals Age Comparisons The table below shows support and opposition levels broken down by age. Overall, the 18-to-24-year-olds indicated the responses “Strongly support” and “Somewhat support” at higher levels than the other age groups. Those ages 25 to 34 more frequently gave the answer “Depends on height,” while those 55 or older were more likely to say they strongly or somewhat oppose the proposals.

Age 18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Strongly support

52.9%

25.3%

28.1%

19.7%

14.4%

22.5%

16.4%

Prefer not to say 1.6%

Somewhat support

34.8%

10.1%

19.5%

15.2%

14.4%

5.7%

12.6%

18.7%

Somewhat oppose

7.2%

3.2%

13.4%

8.4%

18.7%

8.3%

12.2%

.0%

Strongly oppose

.0%

31.2%

33.0%

42.7%

36.5%

53.4%

48.7%

79.7%

Depends on height

1.0%

20.8%

1.5%

5.3%

14.3%

4.7%

5.3%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

4.2%

9.5%

4.5%

8.6%

1.7%

5.4%

4.8%

.0%

n=500

Page 17 February 2014

Q6. Support for 3 Hotel Height Proposals Ethnicity Comparisons With respect to ethnicity comparisons, the African-American/Black, Asian-American, and Latino/Hispanic respondents tended to give higher levels of the response “Strongly support” to this question. On the other hand, Caucasian/White residents were more likely to strongly oppose the proposals.

n=500 Strongly support

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 55.3% 36.4% 17.1% 44.6% .0% 69.1%

Two or more races 17.5%

15.8%

Don't know/ Refused 13.7%

Other

Somewhat support

5.5%

12.4%

16.8%

18.5%

.0%

.0%

4.9%

.0%

.0%

Somewhat oppose

13.7%

9.1%

8.9%

5.0%

.0%

30.8%

17.2%

12.8%

41.6%

Strongly oppose

25.5%

30.0%

42.0%

19.1%

95.2%

.1%

34.2%

29.9%

37.9%

Depends on height

.0%

12.1%

7.8%

8.2%

.0%

.0%

23.0%

.0%

4.5%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

7.4%

4.6%

4.8%

.0%

3.2%

41.5%

2.3%

Page 18 February 2014

Q6. Support for 3 Hotel Height Proposals Direction of Santa Monica Comparisons Residents who previously indicated that they felt the City of Santa Monica was headed in the right direction, also stated in higher levels that they strongly support the three hotel height proposals, and those that stated they felt the City was staying about the same indicated more frequently that they “Somewhat support” the proposals. Respondents who said they felt the City was going in the wrong direction tended to report that they were strongly opposed to the proposals.

Strongly support

40.4%

14.5%

10.0%

Don't know/ Refused 21.9%

Somewhat support

16.2%

19.8%

8.4%

35.6%

Somewhat oppose

8.0%

13.4%

9.1%

11.2%

Strongly oppose

22.3%

25.3%

62.5%

23.6%

Depends on height

9.9%

12.8%

5.1%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

3.2%

14.1%

4.9%

7.7%

n=500

Right Staying Wrong direction the same direction

Page 19 February 2014

Key Findings – Community Benefit Priorities for All Projects

Q7. Importance of Community Benefits (n=500) As illustrated in this chart, with the highest mean scores, “Traffic improvements” and “Public parking” were considered to be the most important community benefits the City could require for project approval. The next tier included “Parks and open space”, “Historic building preservation”, “Active transportation facilities” and “Employment and training opportunities.” All of the potential community benefits were considered important to varying degrees.

Tier 1

1.52

Traffic improvements

1.41

Public parking 1.02

Historic building preservation

1.02

Active transportation facilities

0.99

Tier 2

Parks and open space

0.88

Employment and training opportunities

0.79

Affordable housing

Tier 3

0.61

Museums, art and cultural venues 0.35

Childcare

0.31

Creation of distinctive architecture -2

-1

0

Not at all Important Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “Very Important 5” = +2, “4” = +1, “3” = 0, “2” = -1, and “Not at All Important 1” = -2.

1

2 Very Important Page 21 February 2014

Q7. Importance of Community Benefits Gender and Age Comparisons This table highlights in blue the community benefits that resonate most strongly with residents analyzed by gender and age group. While responses between the genders were largely similar, women indicated placing a much higher level of importance (as indicated by higher mean scores) for the benefits “Affordable housing,” “Childcare,” and “Employment and training opportunities.” The top scoring benefits were generally consistent across age groups. However, the 18-to-34-year-olds reported placing more importance on “Affordable housing,” while the 60-to-64-year-olds found “Parks and open space” to be more important than the other age groups. Gender

n=500

Age

Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64

65+

Traffic improvements

1.59

1.46

1.76

1.40

1.44

1.63

1.50

1.74

1.44

Prefer not to say 1.46

Public parking

1.35

1.46

1.35

1.39

1.54

1.34

1.50

1.53

1.27

1.31

Historic building preservation

.97

1.06

1.00

1.02

.97

1.15

.78

1.07

1.01

1.50

Parks and open space

.91

1.13

.92

.75

1.17

1.17

1.07

1.53

.89

.84

Active transportation facilities

.87

1.10

1.21

1.16

.84

.93

1.01

.98

.83

1.49

Employment and training opportunities

.70

1.05

1.43

.99

.72

.65

.96

.79

.84

1.06

Affordable housing

.61

.97

1.32

1.21

.48

.74

.70

.77

.44

.81

Museums, art and cultural venues

.57

.65

.93

.36

.72

.63

.37

.69

.72

.63

Creation of distinctive architecture

.34

.28

.37

.23

.51

.24

.36

.03

.25

.98

Childcare

.21

.48

.79

.43

.36

.16

.32

.24

.23

.58

Page 22 February 2014

Q7. Importance of Community Benefits Zip Code Comparisons Again, responses were largely homogenous among respondents in the different zip codes. However, residents living in the zip codes 90401 and 90404 tended to indicate higher importance for the benefit “Affordable housing.”

n=500

90401

90402

90403

90404

90405

Traffic improvements

1.59

1.37

1.42

1.67

1.48

Public parking

1.50

1.31

1.45

1.54

1.24

Affordable housing

1.32

.08

.77

1.00

.64

Active transportation facilities

1.23

.57

1.12

1.05

.85

Employment and training opportunities

1.13

.84

.84

1.06

.68

Historic building preservation

1.12

1.00

1.20

.90

.94

Parks and open space

.67

1.34

1.22

1.01

.89

Childcare

.62

.54

.41

.40

.11

Museums, art and cultural venues

.57

.44

.90

.50

.52

Creation of distinctive architecture

.42

.26

.38

.25

.27

Page 23 February 2014

Q7. Importance of Community Benefits Ethnicity Comparisons In terms of ethnicity, African-American/Black, Asian-American, Caucasian/White, and Latino/Hispanic residents were in agreement indicating higher importance for the benefit “Public parking.” In addition, African-American/ Black residents tended to report higher levels of importance for “Historic building preservation,” while Latino/Hispanic residents tended to ascribe higher importance for “Affordable housing,” “Childcare,” “Employment and training opportunities,” and “Parks and open space.”

n=500 Traffic improvements Historic building preservation Public parking Active transportation facilities Employment and training opportunities Museums, art and cultural venues Parks and open space

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 1.94 1.85 1.40 1.73 2.00 1.38

Two or more races 1.17

2.00

Don't know/ Refused 1.79

Other

1.62

1.08

1.04

.89

2.00

-.62

.21

.67

1.16

1.58

1.70

1.38

1.54

1.95

1.38

.20

2.00

1.17

1.35

.60

.94

1.30

2.00

1.38

.88

1.45

1.46

1.04

.94

.74

1.53

1.05

.07

.83

1.40

.44

.87

.65

.55

.82

2.00

.00

.48

.67

.62

.86

1.16

.91

1.44

.10

1.00

.82

1.50

1.48

Childcare

.84

.46

.11

1.10

.05

.00

.91

1.28

.41

Affordable housing Creation of distinctive architecture

.73

.27

.70

1.52

1.95

.61

.65

1.01

1.32

.33

.72

.14

.66

.05

1.00

.66

.50

.63 Page 24 February 2014

Key Findings – Land Use

Q8. Priorities for Commercial Areas (n=500) When asked about land use and the types of development possible in the commercial areas of Santa Monica, respondents indicated the highest priority for “Affordable housing,” followed by “Rental housing” and “Retail, shops and restaurants,” each of which reached a level of “Medium priority” (mean score of 1.0 or higher).

1.3

Affordable housing

Tier 1

1.16

Rental housing

1.13

Retail, shops and restaurants 0.82

Office space

Hotel and condo combinations

0.65

Hotels

0.65

Tier 2

0.69

Condos

0

1

2

Low Priority

Medium Priority

High Priority

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “High Priority” = +2, “Medium Priority” = +1, and “Low Priority” = 0. “

Page 26 February 2014

Q8. Priorities for Commercial Areas Age Comparisons Residents ages 18 to 24 years more frequently gave priority to “Rental housing,” “Hotels,” and “Condos.” Those respondents ages 35 to 54 also stated a preference for “Condos.” Age n=500 Affordable housing

1.59

1.40

1.14

1.16

1.30

1.44

1.26

Prefer not to say 1.33

Rental housing

1.57

1.06

1.06

1.16

1.12

1.25

1.15

1.44

Retail, shops and restaurants

1.34

1.28

1.17

1.07

1.04

1.04

.95

1.27

Hotels

1.19

.49

.63

.64

.71

.73

.55

.41

Condos

1.05

.44

.82

.78

.64

.54

.70

.69

Office space

.99

.82

.90

.77

.96

.61

.72

.85

Hotel and condo combinations

.87

.62

.85

.62

.49

.48

.57

.39

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64

65+

Page 27 February 2014

Q8. Priorities for Commercial Areas Ethnicity Comparisons Latino/Hispanic residents tended to give higher priority to “Affordable housing,” “Rental housing” and “Hotels,” while Asian-American residents favored “Retail, shops and restaurants,” “Office space,” “Hotel and condo combinations,” and “Condos.” African-American/Black residents also preferred “Office space.”

n=500 Affordable housing

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 1.34 .97 1.25 1.71 1.95 1.31

Two or more races 1.31

Don't Other know/ Refused 1.40 1.33

Office space

1.30

1.38

.72

.84

1.00

1.69

.85

.18

.64

Retail, shops and restaurants

1.14

1.49

1.06

1.35

1.00

1.69

.79

.94

.78

Condos

1.07

1.05

.64

.60

1.00

.69

.59

.91

.50

Rental housing Hotel and condo combinations Hotels

1.07

.94

1.11

1.56

1.90

1.31

1.23

1.01

1.01

.82

1.08

.56

.84

1.00

1.00

.56

.24

.32

.79

.82

.56

.95

1.00

.69

.37

.66

.72

Page 28 February 2014

Q9. Support for Developments That Include Specific Features (n=500) When asked whether the respondents would support or oppose a development that included various features, all but one of the features reached the level of “Somewhat support” (mean score of 1.0 or higher). Eighty percent of residents supported the three top-scoring features. The least favorite feature, “Bring new property or sales taxes” garnered a mean score of just .14, far below the “Somewhat support” level.

1.29

Improve traffic circulation

1.18

New or improved public open spaces

1.17

Tier 1

Major public infrastructure improvements

Tier 2

1.01

Include affordable housing

0.14

Bring new property or sales taxes -2

-1

Strongly Oppose

Somewhat Oppose

0

1 Somewhat Support

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “Strongly Support” = +2, “Somewhat Support” = +1, “Somewhat Oppose” = -1, and “Strongly Oppose” = -2.

2 Strongly Support Page 29 February 2014

Q9. Support for Developments That Include Specific Features Ethnicity Comparisons The African-American/Black, Asian-American, Caucasian/White, and Latino/Hispanic residents all indicated a high level of support for “Improve traffic circulation.” In addition, Caucasian/White respondents also tended to support the feature “Include affordable housing” at higher levels, while Latino/Hispanic residents supported “Bring new property or sales taxes” and “New or improved public open spaces” more frequently than the other ethnic groups.

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific n=500 American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 1.53 1.72 1.23 1.48 -.86 1.69 Improve traffic circulation Major public infrastructure 1.17 1.55 1.10 1.49 1.95 2.00 improvements .77 .18 1.00 1.66 1.95 1.99 Include affordable housing New or improved public .73 1.15 1.07 1.64 2.00 1.69 open spaces Bring new property or .36 .64 -.12 .66 1.00 1.69 sales taxes

Two or more races -.10

.84

Don't know/ Refused 1.73

.52

.87

.92

.69

1.34

1.50

1.81

.91

1.17

1.24

-.91

.03

Other

Page 30 February 2014

Q10. Support for Projects That Facilitate Implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan (n=500) Next, the respondents were asked if they supported or opposed projects that facilitate implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan. Total support registered at 74.2% (“Strongly support” 49.7%, “Somewhat support” 24.5%). Total opposition stood at just 18.3% (“Strongly oppose” 13.4%, “Somewhat oppose” 4.9%).

Strongly oppose 13.4%

DK/NA 7.5%

Somewhat oppose 4.9%

Strongly support 49.7%

Somewhat support 24.5%

Page 31 February 2014

Q10. Support for Projects That Facilitate Implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan Age Comparisons While support and opposition was generally similar among the different age groups, there was one statistically significant difference. Residents ages 18 to 24 tended to indicate in higher numbers that they strongly supported the projects.

Age 18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Strongly support

84.1%

46.7%

47.8%

43.3%

46.4%

43.3%

49.6%

Prefer not to say 49.8%

Somewhat support

11.9%

36.7%

17.1%

23.7%

25.1%

26.9%

23.9%

2.5%

Somewhat oppose

4.0%

3.1%

7.9%

8.8%

.6%

4.2%

3.5%

.0%

Strongly oppose

.0%

13.4%

18.0%

10.1%

19.5%

14.0%

13.3%

33.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

9.1%

14.2%

8.4%

11.7%

9.7%

14.7%

n=500

Page 32 February 2014

Q10. Support for Projects That Facilitate Implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan Zip Code Comparisons In terms of zip code of residence, significantly higher levels of the response “Strongly support” were offered by those living in zip code area 90401, and significantly higher levels of “Somewhat support” by residents in the 90402 zip code.

n=500

90401

90402

90403

90404

90405

Strongly support

72.2%

34.2%

48.7%

44.2%

52.6%

Somewhat support

15.7%

44.9%

19.8%

27.2%

23.7%

Somewhat oppose

4.0%

1.7%

7.5%

2.1%

6.3%

Strongly oppose

5.5%

15.1%

9.4%

19.6%

13.3%

Don't know/Refused

2.5%

4.1%

14.7%

7.0%

4.2%

Page 33 February 2014

Q10. Support for Projects That Facilitate Implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan Living North or South of the 10 Freeway Comparisons Residents who live south of the 10 Freeway more frequently stated they both somewhat support and somewhat oppose the proposed projects.

n=182 Strongly support

Live North or South of the 10 Freeway North of South of Don't know/ the 10 the 10 Refused 54.6% 44.6% 23.0%

Somewhat support

19.5%

37.6%

33.7%

Somewhat oppose

.2%

10.4%

.0%

Strongly oppose

19.0%

6.1%

22.6%

Don't know/Refused

6.8%

1.3%

20.6%

Page 34 February 2014

Q10. Support for Projects That Facilitate Implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan Ethnicity Comparisons The Latino/Hispanic residents tended to indicate higher levels of the “Strongly support” response, whereas African-American/Black and Caucasian/White residents more frequently gave a “Strongly oppose” answer to this question.

n=500 Strongly support

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 42.2% 59.8% 45.4% 69.4% 4.8% 69.1%

Two or more races 53.7%

28.7%

Don't know/ Refused 27.3%

Other

Somewhat support

15.9%

15.1%

25.2%

26.6%

95.2%

30.8%

23.9%

41.5%

33.6%

Somewhat oppose

.0%

7.4%

5.1%

1.7%

.0%

.0%

12.3%

.0%

9.4%

Strongly oppose

36.0%

9.1%

15.2%

.5%

.0%

.1%

6.1%

12.4%

29.7%

Don't know/Refused

5.9%

8.6%

8.9%

1.8%

.0%

.0%

4.1%

17.4%

.0%

Page 35 February 2014

Q11. Concern About Possible Outcomes of Development (n=500) When residents were asked to state their level of concern for possible outcomes of new development in the City of Santa Monica, all of the possible outcomes registered concern to varying degrees. Residents were most concerned about transportation issues with “Increased traffic” garnering the highest score, followed by “Competition for parking.”

Tier 1

1.5

Increased traffic

1.32

Competition for parking

1.07

Increased crime

1.04

Too many people

1.04

Tier 2

Increased homelessness

0.86

Damaging character of Santa Monica

Tier 3

0.77

Damaging character of my neighborhood

0.61

Damaging character of downtown -2

-1

0

Not at All Concerned Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “Very Concerned 5” = +2, “4” = +1, “3” = 0, “2” = -1, and “Not at All Concerned” = -2.

1

2 Very Concerned Page 36 February 2014

Q11. Concern About Possible Outcomes of Development Gender and Age Comparisons Overall, women tended to report higher levels of concern for the possible outcomes, with the exception of “Damaging character of Santa Monica” and “Damaging character of my neighborhood.” Generally speaking, residents in the older age groups (35 years and older) tended to express higher levels of concern than those ages 18 to 34.

Gender n=500

Age

Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64

65+

Increased traffic

1.36

1.62

.82

1.37

1.72

1.48

1.81

1.82

1.44

Prefer not to say 1.97

Competition for parking

1.21

1.43

.95

1.20

1.33

1.36

1.60

1.72

1.30

1.36

Damaging character of Santa Monica

.92

.82

.08

.29

.88

1.08

1.37

1.41

1.23

1.28

Too many people

.91

1.15

.60

.57

1.36

1.05

1.32

1.44

1.12

1.70

Increased crime

.81

1.25

.72

.80

1.15

1.16

1.09

1.53

1.03

1.50

Increased homelessness Damaging character of my neighborhood Damaging character of downtown

.81

1.30

.82

.75

1.38

1.04

.93

1.30

1.26

1.19

.77

.76

-.16

.27

.85

1.04

1.15

1.38

.97

1.73

.47

.73

.38

-.15

.80

.82

1.06

1.22

.76

1.04

Page 37 February 2014

Q11. Concern About Possible Outcomes of Development Ethnicity Comparisons African-American/Black, Asian-American, and Caucasian/White residents indicated higher levels of concern regarding “Too many people.” In addition, African-American/Black residents tended to more frequently indicate higher levels of concern for “Increased crime,” “Damaging character of my neighborhood,” and “Damaging character of Downtown.” Asian-American residents expressed higher levels of concern about “Increased traffic” than the other ethnic groups.

n=500 Damaging character of my neighborhood Too many people

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or more races

Other

Don't know/ Refused

1.80

.80

.74

.51

1.00

-1.38

.94

.20

1.61

1.75

1.63

1.05

.50

1.05

-.77

.21

.64

1.76

Increased crime

1.74

.74

1.07

.67

.05

2.00

1.95

1.53

1.35

Increased homelessness Damaging character of Santa Monica Competition for parking

1.58

1.23

1.02

.91

1.00

2.00

1.50

1.46

1.24

1.57

1.01

.86

.73

1.90

-.69

.65

-.15

.79

1.48

1.67

1.28

1.27

1.95

1.38

1.36

1.05

1.32

Increased traffic Damaging character of downtown

1.47

1.91

1.49

1.25

1.95

2.00

.94

2.00

1.95

1.47

.69

.61

.52

1.05

-.69

-.41

.67

.77

Page 38 February 2014

Q12. Importance of Possible Outcomes of Development (n=500) When presented with possible outcomes of development in the City of Santa Monica and asked to give their opinion on the level of importance for each, “Improved economy” and “Creation of new jobs” topped the list. In addition, each of the outcomes received scores indicating they held some level of importance to the residents.

Tier 1

1.26

Improved economy

1.1

Creation of new jobs 0.75

Improved city and school tax base

0.74

Improving character of Santa Monica

0.71

Improving character of downtown

0.65

Improving character of my neighborhood

0.62

Tier 2

Adding affordable housing

Tier 3

0.45

Improving retail and service choices

0.26

Providing distinctive architecture -2

-1

0

Not at All Important Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “Very Important 5” = +2, “4” = +1, “3” = 0, “2” = -1, and “Not at All Important 1” = -2.

1

2 Very Important Page 39 February 2014

Q12. Importance of Possible Outcomes of Development Age Comparisons The reported levels of perceived importance were mostly similar among the different age groups with a couple exceptions. Residents ages 18 to 24 indicated significantly higher levels of importance for “Improved economy,” and residents ages 18 to 34 stated higher levels of importance for “Adding affordable housing.”

Age n=500 Improved economy

1.73

1.46

1.40

.94

.99

1.17

1.14

Prefer not to say .92

Adding affordable housing

1.55

1.12

.58

.34

.55

.80

.55

.97

Creation of new jobs

1.33

1.22

1.20

.80

1.17

.89

1.07

1.07

Improved city and school tax base

1.24

.78

.88

.65

.63

.52

.54

.32

Improving character of downtown

1.03

.46

.77

.47

1.00

.86

.45

1.17

Improving character of my neighborhood

.94

.51

.64

.71

.78

.59

.45

.43

Improving character of Santa Monica

.76

.47

.76

.57

1.01

1.08

.72

1.47

Improving retail and service choices

.69

.55

.45

.18

.51

.68

.38

-.05

Providing distinctive architecture

.44

.22

.22

.07

.40

.37

.25

1.10

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64

65+

Page 40 February 2014

Q12. Importance of Possible Outcomes of Development Zip Code Comparisons The outcome “Adding affordable housing” registered higher levels of importance among residents who live in the 90401, 90403 and 90404 zip codes. Residents in zip code 90402 more frequently mentioned “Providing distinctive architecture” as important, while residents in 90401 zip code also placed high importance on “Improving character of Downtown” than residents in the other zip codes.

n=500

90401

90402

90403

90404

90405

Improved economy

1.43

1.03

1.12

1.34

1.32

Improving character of downtown

1.25

.74

.74

.59

.43

Creation of new jobs

1.08

1.05

1.02

1.27

1.03

Improving character of my neighborhood

1.08

.59

.47

.63

.62

Adding affordable housing

.96

.04

.87

.90

.63

Improving character of Santa Monica

.83

.84

.78

.63

.66

Providing distinctive architecture

.53

.77

.28

-.03

.28

Improved city and school tax base

.46

.75

.54

.97

.79

Improving retail and service choices

.25

.46

.53

.49

.41

Page 41 February 2014

Q12. Importance of Possible Outcomes of Development Living East or West of 20th Street Comparisons Respondents who live east of 20th Street stated higher levels of importance for the outcomes “”Improved city and school tax base,” “Adding affordable housing,” “Improving retail and service choices,” and “Improving character of downtown.”

n=267 Improved economy

Live East or West of 20th Street East of 20th West of 20th Don't know/ Street Street Refused 1.42 1.10 1.42

Creation of new jobs

1.29

1.05

1.33

Adding affordable housing

1.20

.68

.53

Improved city and school tax base

1.14

.48

.87

Improving character of downtown

.92

.45

1.43

Improving character of Santa Monica

.89

.54

1.50

Improving retail and service choices

.77

.34

.64

Improving character of my neighborhood

.74

.40

.94

Providing distinctive architecture

.27

.01

.43

Page 42 February 2014

Q12. Importance of Possible Outcomes of Development Ethnicity Comparisons The responses regarding importance of potential outcomes of development were fairly homogenous among the different ethnic groups. However, Latino/Hispanic residents reported higher levels of importance for “Improved city and school tax base,” “Creation of new jobs.” “Adding affordable housing,” and “Improving retail and service choices.”

n=500 Creation of new jobs Improving character of downtown Improved city and school tax base Improved economy Improving character of my neighborhood Adding affordable housing Providing distinctive architecture Improving character of Santa Monica Improving retail and service choices

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 1.27 1.40 .96 1.52 2.00 1.31

Two or more races 1.10

1.15

Don't know/ Refused 1.06

Other

1.06

1.08

.50

.97

.00

1.69

.46

.98

.49

.82

1.41

.49

1.45

.10

1.31

.71

.48

.56

.80

1.44

1.22

1.51

.05

2.00

.81

1.55

1.14

.78

.77

.49

1.02

.10

2.00

.59

.28

1.35

.74

.31

.64

1.62

2.00

.61

.74

.76

.58

.49

.58

.16

.62

1.00

1.38

-.14

-.07

-.34

.41

.82

.67

.96

.10

2.00

.39

1.09

.61

.13

.75

.35

1.06

1.00

1.38

-.12

.12

-.24

Page 43 February 2014

Key Findings – Urban Form / Aesthetics

Q13. Opinion on How Development Will Affect the Character of Downtown (n=500) In the next section of the survey, respondents were read a series of differing opinions and asked to indicate which was most like their own opinion. In the first set illustrated in the chart below, residents were almost evenly divided on whether they felt development would improve (42.2%) or hurt (47.2%) the character of Downtown Santa Monica.

Mixed Neither DK/NA opinions 3.5% 2.3% 4.8%

OPINION A – New development will improve the character 42.2%

OPINION B – New development will hurt the character 47.2%

Page 45 February 2014

Q13. Opinion on How Development Will Affect the Character of Downtown Age Comparisons In terms of age, the younger residents ages 25 to 34 were more likely to indicate agreement with the opinion that development would improve the character of downtown Santa Monica. In contrast, residents ages 45 and older more frequently agreed with the opinion that development would hurt the character of downtown. Age 18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Prefer not to say

43.5%

70.1%

41.1%

37.5%

29.6%

25.3%

27.5%

19.1%

34.9%

26.7%

45.3%

49.8%

55.7%

68.2%

64.0%

63.3%

12.9%

.0%

1.8%

7.0%

12.3%

.0%

5.4%

17.6%

Neither

8.7%

3.2%

6.5%

1.7%

2.4%

4.4%

.4%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

5.4%

4.0%

.0%

2.0%

2.6%

.0%

n=500 (A) New development will improve the character of downtown Santa Monica, bringing in new businesses, entertainment, restaurants, shopping and economic vitality (B) New development will hurt the character of downtown Santa Monica, permanently changing it to a crowded city Mixed opinions

Page 46 February 2014

Q13. Opinion on How Development Will Affect the Character of Downtown Ethnicity Comparisons Latino/Hispanic residents reported higher levels of agreement with the opinion that development would improve the character of downtown, whereas African-American/Black and Caucasian/White residents felt it would hurt the character of the area. Asian-American residents stated at higher frequencies that they had mixed opinions on the subject.

n=500 (A) New development will improve the character of downtown Santa Monica, bringing in new businesses, entertainment, restaurants, shopping and economic vitality (B) New development will hurt the character of downtown Santa Monica, permanently changing it to a crowded city Mixed opinions

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or Don't more Other know/ races Refused

33.6%

33.4%

38.1%

70.1%

.0%

99.9%

67.5%

28.7%

11.7%

63.4%

42.8%

51.8%

23.0%

100.0%

.1%

29.3%

29.9%

86.0%

3.1%

14.7%

4.6%

1.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

2.3%

Neither

.0%

9.1%

2.3%

5.7%

.0%

.0%

.0%

41.5%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

3.3%

.0%

.0%

.0%

3.2%

.0%

.0%

Page 47 February 2014

Q14. Opinion on Impact of Development on Downtown Skyline (n=500) In this set of opinions, substantially more respondents agreed with the opinion that the downtown Santa Monica skyline has too many tall buildings (58.1%), as opposed to those that felt more tall, architecturally interesting buildings would enhance the downtown skyline (28.6%).

Mixed opinions 7.0%

OPINION D – The skyline of downtown Santa Monica is not very interesting 28.6%

Neither 4.9%

DK/NA 1.4% OPINION C – The skyline of downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings 58.1%

Page 48 February 2014

Q14. Opinion on Impact of Development on Downtown Skyline Age Comparisons Not surprisingly, the younger residents (ages 18 to 44) tended to agree that the skyline was not very interesting and more tall buildings would be a benefit. Residents in the age groups 45 to 59 and 65 and older were more likely to report that they agreed with the opinion that the skyline already has too many tall buildings.

Age n=500

18-24

(C) The skyline of downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings, any more tall 37.4% buildings would make it worse (D) The skyline of downtown Santa Monica is not very interesting, more tall, architecturally 48.1% interesting buildings would make it more distinctive Mixed opinions 6.4%

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Prefer not to say

47.5%

41.6%

65.6%

73.8%

70.3%

77.3%

78.1%

34.0%

40.9%

25.1%

14.5%

21.3%

14.3%

5.6%

10.8%

9.2%

6.3%

8.7%

1.9%

1.8%

16.3%

Neither

8.0%

7.7%

4.7%

.8%

.6%

4.5%

6.6%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

3.6%

2.2%

2.4%

2.1%

.0%

.0%

Page 49 February 2014

Q14. Opinion on Impact of Development on Downtown Skyline Ethnicity Comparisons Asian-American and Latino/Hispanic respondents tended to indicate at higher levels that they would welcome more tall, architecturally interesting buildings downtown, whereas Caucasian/White respondents more frequently said they agreed with the opinion that downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings.

n=500

(C) The skyline of downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings, any more tall buildings would make it worse (D) The skyline of downtown Santa Monica is not very interesting, more tall, architecturally interesting buildings would make it more distinctive Mixed opinions

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or Don't more Other know/ races Refused

64.8%

48.4%

62.6%

35.5%

95.2%

30.9%

74.4% 52.8%

79.5%

34.5%

45.4%

20.9%

56.7%

4.8%

69.1%

22.4%

.1%

16.0%

.7%

6.1%

8.4%

4.7%

.0%

.0%

.0%

5.6%

4.5%

Neither

.0%

.0%

6.2%

3.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

41.5%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

2.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

3.2%

.0%

.0%

Page 50 February 2014

Q14. Opinion on Impact of Development on Downtown Skyline Intensity of Traffic Concerns When compared by the intensity of respondents concerns with increased traffic as a possible outcome of new development, those that were most concerned with increased traffic were most likely to agree with the opinion “The skyline of downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings, any more tall buildings would make it worse.” 11A. Possible Outcome: Increased Traffic 1 - Not at 5 - Very all 2 3 4 DK/NA concerned concerned (C) The skyline of downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings, any more tall buildings would make it worse 14. Opinion - The skyline (D) The skyline of of downtown Santa downtown Santa Monica Monica has too many tall is not very interesting, buildings/more would more tall, architecturally make it distinctive interesting buildings would make it more distinctive Mixed opinions Neither Don't know/Refused

22.6%

100.0%

55.4%

48.6%

62.3%

16.3%

62.9%

0.0%

41.6%

41.3%

23.4%

0.0%

0.0% 14.5% 0.0%

0.0% .0% 0.0%

2.9% 0.0% 0.0%

4.1% 6.0% 0.0%

8.5% 4.0% 1.8%

0.0% 65.3% 18.4% Page 51 February 2014

Q15. Opinion on Impact of Development of Hotels with “For Sale Condos” (n=500) Slightly fewer residents agreed with the opinion that “for sale condos” included in the development of hotels is good for downtown Santa Monica (37.3%), as opposed to those who agreed with the opinion that it was not good for the downtown area (44.1%).

Mixed opinions 7.6%

Neither 6.7%

DK/NA 4.2%

OPINION E – “for sale condos” brings permanent residents and is good for downtown Santa Monica 37.3%

OPINION F – “for sale condos” builds luxury housing and is not good for downtown Santa Monica 44.1%

Page 52 February 2014

Q15. Opinion on Impact of Development of Hotels with “For Sale Condos” Ethnicity Comparisons Asian-American and Latino/Hispanic residents tended to indicate more agreement with the opinion that hotels with “for sale condos” is good for downtown Santa Monica, while Caucasian/White residents were more likely to agree with the opinion that this component of hotel development would have a negative impact on the area.

n=500

(E) Current hotel projects include “for sale condos” to obtain financing. This approach brings permanent residents and is good for downtown Santa Monica (F) Current hotel projects include “for sale condos” to obtain financing. This approach builds luxury housing and is not good for downtown Santa Monica Mixed opinions

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or Don't more Other know/ races Refused

41.3%

54.7%

30.2%

59.4%

.0%

99.9%

53.5%

23.3%

11.7%

52.9%

29.9%

49.2%

27.5%

100.0%

.0%

38.4%

22.8%

61.1%

.0%

9.1%

8.8%

5.3%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

6.6%

Neither

5.9%

6.3%

6.3%

6.4%

.0%

.1%

4.9%

41.5%

14.1%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

5.5%

1.4%

.0%

.0%

3.2%

12.3%

6.5%

Page 53 February 2014

Q16. Opinion on Height of New Downtown Buildings Affecting Creation of Open Space (n=500) Somewhat more residents agreed with the opinion that new buildings in downtown Santa Monica should be kept as low as possible regardless of the impact on open space (45.8%), over those that agreed with the opinion that new buildings should be taller and thinner to create more open space (35.6%).

Mixed opinions 6.7%

Neither 8.4%

DK/NA 3.5%

OPINION G – New buildings in downtown Santa Monica should be taller, thinner and architecturally distinct 35.6%

OPINION H – New buildings in Downtown Santa Monica should be kept as low as possible 45.8%

Page 54 February 2014

Q16. Opinion on Height of New Downtown Buildings Affecting Creation of Open Space Age Comparisons Residents ages 18 to 34 were more likely to indicate agreement with the opinion that building downtown should be taller and thinner to create more open space. Conversely, residents ages 45 to 59 and 65 and older tended to agree with the opinion that buildings downtown should be kept low even if it doesn’t leave room for open space. Age n=500 (G) New buildings in downtown Santa Monica should be taller, thinner and architecturally distinct to create more open space (H) New buildings in Downtown Santa Monica should be kept as low as possible even if it doesn’t leave room for as much open space Mixed opinion Neither Don't know/Refused

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Prefer not to say

54.3%

59.0%

35.1%

21.9%

26.1%

18.3%

24.1%

17.9%

27.8%

31.1%

37.6%

57.4%

63.6%

56.7%

54.7%

82.1%

6.5%

3.8%

11.3%

10.8%

3.0%

7.3%

3.9%

.0%

11.4%

6.0%

10.7%

6.7%

4.8%

15.6%

8.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

5.3%

3.2%

2.4%

2.1%

9.2%

.0%

Page 55 February 2014

Q16. Opinion on Height of New Downtown Buildings Affecting Creation of Open Space Intensity of Traffic Concerns When compared by the intensity of respondents concerns with increased traffic as a possible outcome of new development, those that were most concerned with increased traffic were moderately more likely to agree with the opinion that “New buildings in Downtown Santa Monica should be kept as low as possible even if it doesn't leave room for open space.” 11A. Possible Outcome: Increased Traffic

16. Opinion - New buildings should be taller/as low as possible

(G) New buildings in downtown Santa Monica should be taller, thinner and architecturally distinct to create more open space (H) New buildings in Downtown Santa Monica should be kept as low as possible even if it doesn't leave room for open space Mixed opinion Neither Don't know/Refused

1 - Not at all concerned

2

3

4

5 - Very concerned

DK/NA

63.3%

31.6%

63.7%

35.3%

31.8%

0.0%

25.7%

68.4%

16.3%

52.1%

48.1%

16.3%

0.0% 6.7% 4.3%

0.0% .0% 0.0%

4.0% 16.0% 0.0%

10.4% 1.6% .5%

6.6% 9.3% 4.2%

49.0% 16.3% 18.4%

Page 56 February 2014

Q17. Opinion on Whether New Downtown Development Should Include New Hotels (n=500) Significantly more respondents agreed with the opinion that new development in downtown Santa Monica should include new hotels for the reason that they generate revenue and create relatively little traffic (48.9%), in comparison with those who agreed with the opinion that hotels should not be included in such development because they bring in more visitors (35.6%)

Mixed opinions 9.4% OPINION J – New development in Downtown Santa Monica should not include new hotels 35.6%

Neither DK/NA 3.5% 2.6%

OPINION I – New development in Downtown Santa Monica should include new hotels 48.9%

Page 57 February 2014

Q17. Opinion on Whether New Downtown Development Should Include New Hotels Age Comparisons The younger residents (ages 18 to 34) tended to agree more frequently with the opinion that development in downtown Santa Monica should include new hotels. On the other hand, residents ages 65 and older tended to agree with the opinion that development should not include more hotels.

Age n=500

18-24

(I) New development in Downtown Santa Monica should include new hotels because they generate 73.7% revenue for the community and generate relatively little traffic (J) New development in Downtown Santa Monica should not include new hotels because they just 17.7% bring in more visitors Mixed opinion 4.6%

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Prefer not to say

64.0%

44.5%

38.4%

42.1%

44.9%

40.3%

19.1%

28.3%

28.1%

40.6%

41.8%

44.3%

47.9%

63.3%

7.7%

13.8%

14.8%

13.1%

4.3%

3.6%

17.6%

Neither

4.0%

.0%

5.5%

4.0%

3.0%

1.3%

1.3%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

8.1%

2.2%

.0%

5.2%

7.0%

.0%

Page 58 February 2014

Q17. Opinion on Whether New Downtown Development Should Include New Hotels Ethnicity Comparisons In terms of differences among ethnic groups, Latino/Hispanic respondents were more likely to agree with the opinion that development downtown should new hotels. Conversely, African-American/Black and Caucasian/White respondents tended to agree with the opinion that new development should not include new hotels. Asian-American residents were more likely to indicate they held mixed opinions on the subject.

n=500 (I) New development in Downtown Santa Monica should include new hotels because they generate revenue for the community and generate relatively little traffic (J) New development in Downtown Santa Monica should not include new hotels because they just bring in more visitors Mixed opinion

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or Don't more Other know/ races Refused

22.9%

59.4%

44.8%

71.8%

100.0%

99.9%

36.9%

70.1%

27.6%

60.4%

13.6%

39.8%

22.9%

.0%

.1%

46.7%

17.5%

40.1%

10.7%

23.8%

8.6%

3.5%

.0%

.0%

.9%

.0%

20.7%

Neither

.0%

.0%

2.9%

1.8%

.0%

.0%

12.3%

12.3%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

6.0%

3.2%

3.9%

.0%

.0%

.0%

3.2%

.0%

11.6%

Page 59 February 2014

Q18. Preferences for Types of Development (n=500) Next, the survey respondents were asked in an open-end format what type of development they would prefer for downtown Santa Monica. The most frequent answers were “Traffic control/Better parking/More affordable parking,” “Open space/Parks/Trees,” “Non-chain stores/Small business/Restaurants/Night life,” and “No development/Stop/Slow/Growth.” All the remaining responses garnered less than ten percent mentions. 15.8% 15.6% 14.9%

Traffic control/Better parking/More affordable parking Open space/Parks/Trees Non-chain stores/Small business/Restaurants/Night life No development/Stop/Slow/Growth Affordable rents/Housing/Retail rental space With height limits/New hotels/Condos/Apartments Build revenue based business Good as it is now Restore to previous appearance/Historical architecture Museums/Art/Cultural Better public transportation Very little Wal-Mart/Target/Discount stores Post office Nothing/None Don't go there/Much Other mention Undecided/Need more information DK/NA/Unsure

12.2%

9.6% 7.5% 5.4% 4.9% 4.7% 4.0% 2.8% 1.7% 1.1% 0.1% 8.9% 0.8% 9.2% 0.3% 3.1% 0%

10%

20% Page 60 February 2014

Q19. Support for Height Limits in DSPF (n=500) After the detailed questions within the survey, total support for the height limits proposed in the Santa Monica Downtown Specific Plan among all residents was at 68.6 percent (47.9% “Strongly support” and 20.7% “Somewhat support”), which is slightly lower than but statistically unchanged from support registered in the initial test. Total opposition increased slightly to 25.4 percent, when compared with the initial test (22.7%).

68.6% 47.9%

Final Test

20.7%

9.0%

16.4%

6.1%

71.1% 49.9%

Initial Test

0%

20%

Strongly support

21.2%

40% Somewhat support

60% Somewhat oppose

9.7%

13.0%

80% Strongly oppose

6.1%

100% DK/NA Page 61 February 2014

Q19. Support for Height Limits in DSPF Zip Code Comparisons Residents in the 90401 zip code tended to indicate higher levels of “Strongly support” in response to this question, while those living in the 90402 and 90404 zip codes more frequently said they “Somewhat oppose” the height limits in the Plan.

n=500

90401

90402

90403

90404

90405

Strongly support

66.6%

54.8%

42.7%

52.4%

40.9%

Somewhat support

20.2%

14.4%

21.0%

14.8%

27.5%

Somewhat oppose

3.2%

16.2%

8.2%

15.4%

3.7%

Strongly oppose

10.0%

14.5%

19.7%

10.4%

21.3%

.0%

.0%

8.4%

7.1%

6.6%

Don't know/Refused

Page 62 February 2014

Summary

Summary  The survey revealed that a plurality of respondents (41.7%) believe the City of Santa Monica is going in the right direction, but a statistically similar portion (33.9%) believe it is going in the wrong direction.  The survey results found that respondents liked the “Restaurants/Shopping/Entertainment” features of downtown Santa Monica the most. Contrastingly, respondents clearly indicated that “Traffic/Congestion” and “Parking” issues were the features of downtown they liked the least.  Just over a third of the respondents (36.7%) were aware of the Downtown Specific Plan Framework.  Nearly three-quarters of the respondents (71.1%) indicated they support the height limits in the Downtown Specific Plan Framework. Although, only two in five respondents support allowing three potential hotel projects to exceed the height limit.  Demographically, younger respondents and Latinos were generally more likely to see the City going the right direction and were more supportive of downtown development. Page 64 February 2014

Summary II  Traffic related issues, including concern about worsening traffic as an outcome of new development or support for potential solutions, was a consistent theme throughout the survey. Parking related issues were the second consistent theme in the survey. Conversely, improving the economy and creating new jobs were seen as the most important outcomes of new development.  Nearly three-quarters of the respondents (74.2%), indicated support for the Bergamot Area Plan.

Page 65 February 2014

Information Item Date: February 27, 2014 To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Rod Gould, City Manager

Subject:

Results from 2014 Resident Survey on Future Development

Introduction The attached report from Godbe Research provides in depth information on resident opinions on future development related issues.

Background The City of Santa Monica conducts telephone surveys of Santa Monica residents to assess resident satisfaction with City services, as well as occasionally surveying voters’ attitudes about possible revenue options aimed at addressing critical needs. Council requested that staff conduct a resident opinion survey on matters related to future development at the May 29, 2013 Budget Study Session meeting, and authorized funding for this purpose at the June 25, 2013 Budget Adoption meeting. A competitive request for proposals was issued in June and July of 2013 to conduct a resident survey on matters related to future development. On September 24, 2013, Council authorized a professional services agreement with Godbe Research, a California-based company, in an amount not to exceed $32,135 to conduct a resident opinion survey on future development.

Discussion Godbe Research was commissioned to conduct the survey. Staff requested and the League of Women Voters-Santa Monica agreed to participate as an impartial observer in the survey development process to monitor staff work with the consultant to ensure objectivity. 1

The survey was designed to: 

Assess residents’ overall perceptions of the City of Santa Monica



Gather feedback on the downtown and Bergamot plans



Assess community benefit priorities for all development projects



Gauge land use priorities



Understand preferences on urban form and aesthetics

Godbe Research conducted a total of 500 telephone interviews of adult residents (18 and older). The error rate is plus or minus 4.4% for the sample. Interviews were conducted from January 11 through January 20, 2014. The average interview time was approximately 22 minutes. Twenty-two interviews were conducted in Spanish.

A study session will be held on the results of the survey during the March 18, 2014 Council meeting.

The full report is attached for review.

Prepared By: Kathryn Vernez, Deputy City Manager, Special Projects David Martin, Planning and Community Development Director

2

City of Santa Monica: 2014 Development Survey February 2014

Overview and Research Objectives The City of Santa Monica commissioned Godbe Research to conduct a survey of local adult residents with the following research objectives:  Assess residents’ overall perceptions of the City of Santa Monica;  Gather feedback on the downtown and Bergamot plans;  Assess Community Benefit priorities for all development projects;  Gauge land use priorities;  Understand preferences on urban form and aesthetics; and  Identify any differences in residents’ opinions due to demographic characteristics.

Page 2 February 2014

Methodology Overview  Data Collection

Telephone Interviewing

 Universe

77,523 adult residents (18 years and older) in the City of Santa Monica.

 Fielding Dates

January 11 through January 20, 2014

 Interview Length

22 minutes

 Sample Size

500 Twenty-two interviews were conducted in Spanish.

 Margin of Error

± 4.4%

The observations highlighted in the narrative of this report are based on the findings uncovered in the statistical significance testing, which is shown in the detailed crosstabulations for the specific question being addressed and more fully explained in Appendix B. Note: The data have been weighted to reflect the actual population characteristics of adult residents in the City of Santa Monica in terms of their gender, age, ethnicity and home ownership.

Page 3 February 2014

Key Findings – Santa Monica Climate Questions

Q1. Opinion on the Direction of Santa Monica (n=500) Survey respondents were first asked for their opinion about the direction in which the City of Santa Monica was going. About two in five residents indicated they felt the City was headed in the right direction, while almost one in five said they felt it was staying the same. One-third stated they felt the City was going in the wrong direction, with five percent indicating that they either did not know or had no opinion on the subject.

DK/NA 5.7% Wrong direction 33.9%

Right direction 41.7%

Staying the same 18.7%

Page 5 February 2014

Q1. Opinion on the Direction of Santa Monica Age Comparisons The table below shows opinion broken down by age groups. Generally speaking, the younger residents were more likely to state they felt the City was headed in the right direction. However, responses trended toward the opinion that the City was going in the wrong direction in the older age groups. While the 18-to-24-year-olds were more likely to be optimistic about the direction of the City and those ages 35 and older were more pessimistic, the 25-to-34-year-olds more frequently gave the response “Staying the same.”’

Age 18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Right direction

81.7%

52.7%

50.1%

33.1%

29.3%

28.2%

22.9%

Prefer not to say 2.8%

Staying the same

7.7%

36.3%

13.1%

9.6%

27.4%

9.5%

17.3%

2.8%

Wrong direction

.0%

7.2%

28.2%

53.4%

40.9%

59.2%

54.6%

64.9%

10.6%

3.8%

8.6%

3.9%

2.4%

3.1%

5.1%

29.4%

n=500

Don't know/Refused

Page 6 February 2014

Q1. Opinion on the Direction of Santa Monica Ethnicity Comparisons When the results are viewed in terms of ethnicity, Latino/Hispanic residents had a higher tendency to indicate they felt the City was going in the right direction. Conversely, Asian-American and Caucasian/White residents were more likely to report they felt the City was headed in the wrong direction.

n=500 Right direction

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 55.7% 50.0% 34.6% 75.2% .0% 69.1%

Two or more races 32.9%

10.9%

Don't know/ Refused 9.0%

Other

Staying the same

8.4%

12.2%

19.2%

19.0%

4.8%

30.8%

56.0%

12.9%

.0%

Wrong direction

30.0%

30.4%

40.0%

5.8%

95.2%

.1%

7.8%

34.7%

84.5%

Don't know/Refused

5.9%

7.5%

6.2%

.0%

.0%

.0%

3.2%

41.5%

6.5%

Page 7 February 2014

Q2. Most Liked Features About Downtown (n=500) When asked in an open-end format what features other than the weather residents most liked about downtown Santa Monica (in the area around the 3rd Street Promenade), one third said “Restaurants/Shopping/ Entertainment,” followed closely by “Nice/Clean/Vibe of area/Upscale.” Slightly more than one in ten residents indicated “Walkability of area” as their most liked feature. All other responses garnered less than ten percent mentions. 33.9%

Restaurants/Shopping/Entertainment 28.6%

Nice/Clean/Vibe of area/Upscale 10.9%

Walkability of area

8.5%

Beach/Close to ocean/Bike paths

7.6%

Accessibility/Bus/Rail/Subway coming 3.9%

General mention of Promenade Safe

2.8%

Good parking

2.7% 1.7%

Tourist/Revenue

0.9%

Library

2.5%

Nothing

2.1%

Don't go there/Crowded

6.7%

Don't go there/Much/Don't like

6.3%

Other mention

0.3%

Undecided/Need more information

2.3%

DK/NA/Unsure

0%

20%

40% Page 8 February 2014

Q3. Least Liked Features About Downtown (n=500) Again, in an open-end format, residents were asked what they liked least about downtown. Two out of five residents said “Traffic/Congestion.” About one in six respondents indicated “No parking/Expensive to park,” while approximately one in ten gave the responses “Overdeveloped/Chain stores/High rise building,” “Crowded,” and “Homelessness/People panhandling/Crime” as their least liked features. All other responses garnered fewer than ten percent mentions. 41.3%

Traffic/Congestion No parking/Expensive to park Overdeveloped/Chain stores/High rise building Crowded Homelessness/People panhandling/Crime Tourist/Not for locals Expensive area Not enough shopping/Unique shops Street performers Dirty Bike traffic Apartment building/Ugly buildings Not enough trees/Open space/Restrooms Nothing/No dislike of area Dislike everything of area Don't go there/Much Other mention DK/NA/Unsure

17.4% 12.4% 11.7% 11.6% 4.6% 3.9% 1.4% 0.9% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 6.9% 0.3% 0.5% 4.2% 1.5% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50% Page 9 February 2014

Key Findings – Height

Q4. Seen, Heard or Read About DSPF (n=500) Next, the survey respondents were asked whether they had seen, heard or read anything about the Santa Monica Downtown Specific Plan Framework. In response, more than half of the respondents indicated they had not, while about a third said they had some exposure to the Plan.

DK/NA 4.9% Yes 36.7%

No 58.3%

Page 11 February 2014

Q4. Seen, Heard or Read About DSPF Zip Code Comparisons When analyzed in terms of zip code of residence, respondents in the 90401 and 90403 zip codes were more likely to indicate that they had heard, read or seen information about the Downtown Specific Plan Framework. Residents of the 90404 zip code were most likely not to be aware of the plan.

n=500

90401

90402

90403

90404

90405

Yes, seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework

49.8%

32.9%

48.5%

20.3%

38.2%

No, have not seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework

32.3%

62.8%

47.2%

77.8%

57.5%

Don't know/Refused

17.9%

4.3%

4.3%

1.9%

4.4%

Page 12 February 2014

Q4. Seen, Heard or Read About DSPF Living East or West of 20th Street Comparisons Respondents living west of 20th Street were more likely to indicate they had seen, heard or read about the Downtown Specific Plan Framework. Alternatively, those who live east of 20th Street more frequently reported that they had no exposure to the Plan.

n=267 Yes, seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework No, have not seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework Don't know/Refused

Live East or West of 20th Street East of 20th West of 20th Don't know/ Street Street Refused 25.5% 41.0% 16.9% 74.5%

55.0%

54.3%

.0%

3.9%

28.7%

Page 13 February 2014

Q4. Seen, Heard or Read About DSPF Ethnicity Comparisons African-American/Black and Caucasian/White residents more frequently reported having seen, heard or read about the Plan, whereas Asian-American and Latino/Hispanic respondents said they had not had any exposure to the Plan.

n=500 Yes, seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework No, have not seen, heard or read about the Specific Plan Framework Don't know/Refused

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or more races

Other

Don't know/ Refused

67.7%

13.8%

42.6%

12.8%

95.2%

69.2%

25.7%

47.4%

61.8%

26.3%

80.1%

52.1%

84.3%

4.8%

30.8%

74.3%

52.6%

29.4%

6.0%

6.1%

5.3%

2.9%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

8.8%

Page 14 February 2014

Q5. Support for Height Limits in DSPF (n=500) Next, the survey respondents were asked whether they supported or opposed the height limits proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan. Total support for the height limits was 71.1 percent (“Strongly support” 49.9% and “Somewhat support” 21.2%), while total opposition registered at 22.7 percent (“Strongly oppose” 13.0% and “Somewhat oppose” 9.7%).

Strongly oppose 13.0%

DK/NA 6.1%

Somewhat oppose 9.7%

Strongly support 49.9%

Somewhat support 21.2%

Page 15 February 2014

Q6. Support for 3 Hotel Height Proposals (n=500) When the respondents were next asked to indicate their level of support or opposition for three pending hotel proposals that would exceed the height limit in exchange for community benefits, opposition was slightly higher than support. Total support was 39.5 percent (“Strongly support” 24.2%, “Somewhat support” 15.3%), in contrast with total opposition at 46.2 percent (“Strongly oppose” 36.6%, “Somewhat oppose” 9.6%). Nearly one in ten residents indicated that their response would depend on the height of the proposed hotels.

Depends of height 8.2%

Strongly oppose 36.6%

DK/NA 6.1%

Strongly support 24.2%

Somewhat support 15.3% Somewhat oppose 9.6%

Page 16 February 2014

Q6. Support for 3 Hotel Height Proposals Age Comparisons The table below shows support and opposition levels broken down by age. Overall, the 18-to-24-year-olds indicated the responses “Strongly support” and “Somewhat support” at higher levels than the other age groups. Those ages 25 to 34 more frequently gave the answer “Depends on height,” while those 55 or older were more likely to say they strongly or somewhat oppose the proposals.

Age 18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Strongly support

52.9%

25.3%

28.1%

19.7%

14.4%

22.5%

16.4%

Prefer not to say 1.6%

Somewhat support

34.8%

10.1%

19.5%

15.2%

14.4%

5.7%

12.6%

18.7%

Somewhat oppose

7.2%

3.2%

13.4%

8.4%

18.7%

8.3%

12.2%

.0%

Strongly oppose

.0%

31.2%

33.0%

42.7%

36.5%

53.4%

48.7%

79.7%

Depends on height

1.0%

20.8%

1.5%

5.3%

14.3%

4.7%

5.3%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

4.2%

9.5%

4.5%

8.6%

1.7%

5.4%

4.8%

.0%

n=500

Page 17 February 2014

Q6. Support for 3 Hotel Height Proposals Ethnicity Comparisons With respect to ethnicity comparisons, the African-American/Black, Asian-American, and Latino/Hispanic respondents tended to give higher levels of the response “Strongly support” to this question. On the other hand, Caucasian/White residents were more likely to strongly oppose the proposals.

n=500 Strongly support

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 55.3% 36.4% 17.1% 44.6% .0% 69.1%

Two or more races 17.5%

15.8%

Don't know/ Refused 13.7%

Other

Somewhat support

5.5%

12.4%

16.8%

18.5%

.0%

.0%

4.9%

.0%

.0%

Somewhat oppose

13.7%

9.1%

8.9%

5.0%

.0%

30.8%

17.2%

12.8%

41.6%

Strongly oppose

25.5%

30.0%

42.0%

19.1%

95.2%

.1%

34.2%

29.9%

37.9%

Depends on height

.0%

12.1%

7.8%

8.2%

.0%

.0%

23.0%

.0%

4.5%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

7.4%

4.6%

4.8%

.0%

3.2%

41.5%

2.3%

Page 18 February 2014

Q6. Support for 3 Hotel Height Proposals Direction of Santa Monica Comparisons Residents who previously indicated that they felt the City of Santa Monica was headed in the right direction, also stated in higher levels that they strongly support the three hotel height proposals, and those that stated they felt the City was staying about the same indicated more frequently that they “Somewhat support” the proposals. Respondents who said they felt the City was going in the wrong direction tended to report that they were strongly opposed to the proposals.

Strongly support

40.4%

14.5%

10.0%

Don't know/ Refused 21.9%

Somewhat support

16.2%

19.8%

8.4%

35.6%

Somewhat oppose

8.0%

13.4%

9.1%

11.2%

Strongly oppose

22.3%

25.3%

62.5%

23.6%

Depends on height

9.9%

12.8%

5.1%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

3.2%

14.1%

4.9%

7.7%

n=500

Right Staying Wrong direction the same direction

Page 19 February 2014

Key Findings – Community Benefit Priorities for All Projects

Q7. Importance of Community Benefits (n=500) As illustrated in this chart, with the highest mean scores, “Traffic improvements” and “Public parking” were considered to be the most important community benefits the City could require for project approval. The next tier included “Parks and open space”, “Historic building preservation”, “Active transportation facilities” and “Employment and training opportunities.” All of the potential community benefits were considered important to varying degrees.

Tier 1

1.52

Traffic improvements

1.41

Public parking 1.02

Historic building preservation

1.02

Active transportation facilities

0.99

Tier 2

Parks and open space

0.88

Employment and training opportunities

0.79

Affordable housing

Tier 3

0.61

Museums, art and cultural venues 0.35

Childcare

0.31

Creation of distinctive architecture -2

-1

0

Not at all Important Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “Very Important 5” = +2, “4” = +1, “3” = 0, “2” = -1, and “Not at All Important 1” = -2.

1

2 Very Important Page 21 February 2014

Q7. Importance of Community Benefits Gender and Age Comparisons This table highlights in blue the community benefits that resonate most strongly with residents analyzed by gender and age group. While responses between the genders were largely similar, women indicated placing a much higher level of importance (as indicated by higher mean scores) for the benefits “Affordable housing,” “Childcare,” and “Employment and training opportunities.” The top scoring benefits were generally consistent across age groups. However, the 18-to-34-year-olds reported placing more importance on “Affordable housing,” while the 60-to-64-year-olds found “Parks and open space” to be more important than the other age groups. Gender

n=500

Age

Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64

65+

Traffic improvements

1.59

1.46

1.76

1.40

1.44

1.63

1.50

1.74

1.44

Prefer not to say 1.46

Public parking

1.35

1.46

1.35

1.39

1.54

1.34

1.50

1.53

1.27

1.31

Historic building preservation

.97

1.06

1.00

1.02

.97

1.15

.78

1.07

1.01

1.50

Parks and open space

.91

1.13

.92

.75

1.17

1.17

1.07

1.53

.89

.84

Active transportation facilities

.87

1.10

1.21

1.16

.84

.93

1.01

.98

.83

1.49

Employment and training opportunities

.70

1.05

1.43

.99

.72

.65

.96

.79

.84

1.06

Affordable housing

.61

.97

1.32

1.21

.48

.74

.70

.77

.44

.81

Museums, art and cultural venues

.57

.65

.93

.36

.72

.63

.37

.69

.72

.63

Creation of distinctive architecture

.34

.28

.37

.23

.51

.24

.36

.03

.25

.98

Childcare

.21

.48

.79

.43

.36

.16

.32

.24

.23

.58

Page 22 February 2014

Q7. Importance of Community Benefits Zip Code Comparisons Again, responses were largely homogenous among respondents in the different zip codes. However, residents living in the zip codes 90401 and 90404 tended to indicate higher importance for the benefit “Affordable housing.”

n=500

90401

90402

90403

90404

90405

Traffic improvements

1.59

1.37

1.42

1.67

1.48

Public parking

1.50

1.31

1.45

1.54

1.24

Affordable housing

1.32

.08

.77

1.00

.64

Active transportation facilities

1.23

.57

1.12

1.05

.85

Employment and training opportunities

1.13

.84

.84

1.06

.68

Historic building preservation

1.12

1.00

1.20

.90

.94

Parks and open space

.67

1.34

1.22

1.01

.89

Childcare

.62

.54

.41

.40

.11

Museums, art and cultural venues

.57

.44

.90

.50

.52

Creation of distinctive architecture

.42

.26

.38

.25

.27

Page 23 February 2014

Q7. Importance of Community Benefits Ethnicity Comparisons In terms of ethnicity, African-American/Black, Asian-American, Caucasian/White, and Latino/Hispanic residents were in agreement indicating higher importance for the benefit “Public parking.” In addition, African-American/ Black residents tended to report higher levels of importance for “Historic building preservation,” while Latino/Hispanic residents tended to ascribe higher importance for “Affordable housing,” “Childcare,” “Employment and training opportunities,” and “Parks and open space.”

n=500 Traffic improvements Historic building preservation Public parking Active transportation facilities Employment and training opportunities Museums, art and cultural venues Parks and open space

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 1.94 1.85 1.40 1.73 2.00 1.38

Two or more races 1.17

2.00

Don't know/ Refused 1.79

Other

1.62

1.08

1.04

.89

2.00

-.62

.21

.67

1.16

1.58

1.70

1.38

1.54

1.95

1.38

.20

2.00

1.17

1.35

.60

.94

1.30

2.00

1.38

.88

1.45

1.46

1.04

.94

.74

1.53

1.05

.07

.83

1.40

.44

.87

.65

.55

.82

2.00

.00

.48

.67

.62

.86

1.16

.91

1.44

.10

1.00

.82

1.50

1.48

Childcare

.84

.46

.11

1.10

.05

.00

.91

1.28

.41

Affordable housing Creation of distinctive architecture

.73

.27

.70

1.52

1.95

.61

.65

1.01

1.32

.33

.72

.14

.66

.05

1.00

.66

.50

.63 Page 24 February 2014

Key Findings – Land Use

Q8. Priorities for Commercial Areas (n=500) When asked about land use and the types of development possible in the commercial areas of Santa Monica, respondents indicated the highest priority for “Affordable housing,” followed by “Rental housing” and “Retail, shops and restaurants,” each of which reached a level of “Medium priority” (mean score of 1.0 or higher).

1.3

Affordable housing

Tier 1

1.16

Rental housing

1.13

Retail, shops and restaurants 0.82

Office space

Hotel and condo combinations

0.65

Hotels

0.65

Tier 2

0.69

Condos

0

1

2

Low Priority

Medium Priority

High Priority

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “High Priority” = +2, “Medium Priority” = +1, and “Low Priority” = 0. “

Page 26 February 2014

Q8. Priorities for Commercial Areas Age Comparisons Residents ages 18 to 24 years more frequently gave priority to “Rental housing,” “Hotels,” and “Condos.” Those respondents ages 35 to 54 also stated a preference for “Condos.” Age n=500 Affordable housing

1.59

1.40

1.14

1.16

1.30

1.44

1.26

Prefer not to say 1.33

Rental housing

1.57

1.06

1.06

1.16

1.12

1.25

1.15

1.44

Retail, shops and restaurants

1.34

1.28

1.17

1.07

1.04

1.04

.95

1.27

Hotels

1.19

.49

.63

.64

.71

.73

.55

.41

Condos

1.05

.44

.82

.78

.64

.54

.70

.69

Office space

.99

.82

.90

.77

.96

.61

.72

.85

Hotel and condo combinations

.87

.62

.85

.62

.49

.48

.57

.39

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64

65+

Page 27 February 2014

Q8. Priorities for Commercial Areas Ethnicity Comparisons Latino/Hispanic residents tended to give higher priority to “Affordable housing,” “Rental housing” and “Hotels,” while Asian-American residents favored “Retail, shops and restaurants,” “Office space,” “Hotel and condo combinations,” and “Condos.” African-American/Black residents also preferred “Office space.”

n=500 Affordable housing

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 1.34 .97 1.25 1.71 1.95 1.31

Two or more races 1.31

Don't Other know/ Refused 1.40 1.33

Office space

1.30

1.38

.72

.84

1.00

1.69

.85

.18

.64

Retail, shops and restaurants

1.14

1.49

1.06

1.35

1.00

1.69

.79

.94

.78

Condos

1.07

1.05

.64

.60

1.00

.69

.59

.91

.50

Rental housing Hotel and condo combinations Hotels

1.07

.94

1.11

1.56

1.90

1.31

1.23

1.01

1.01

.82

1.08

.56

.84

1.00

1.00

.56

.24

.32

.79

.82

.56

.95

1.00

.69

.37

.66

.72

Page 28 February 2014

Q9. Support for Developments That Include Specific Features (n=500) When asked whether the respondents would support or oppose a development that included various features, all but one of the features reached the level of “Somewhat support” (mean score of 1.0 or higher). Eighty percent of residents supported the three top-scoring features. The least favorite feature, “Bring new property or sales taxes” garnered a mean score of just .14, far below the “Somewhat support” level.

1.29

Improve traffic circulation

1.18

New or improved public open spaces

1.17

Tier 1

Major public infrastructure improvements

Tier 2

1.01

Include affordable housing

0.14

Bring new property or sales taxes -2

-1

Strongly Oppose

Somewhat Oppose

0

1 Somewhat Support

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “Strongly Support” = +2, “Somewhat Support” = +1, “Somewhat Oppose” = -1, and “Strongly Oppose” = -2.

2 Strongly Support Page 29 February 2014

Q9. Support for Developments That Include Specific Features Ethnicity Comparisons The African-American/Black, Asian-American, Caucasian/White, and Latino/Hispanic residents all indicated a high level of support for “Improve traffic circulation.” In addition, Caucasian/White respondents also tended to support the feature “Include affordable housing” at higher levels, while Latino/Hispanic residents supported “Bring new property or sales taxes” and “New or improved public open spaces” more frequently than the other ethnic groups.

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific n=500 American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 1.53 1.72 1.23 1.48 -.86 1.69 Improve traffic circulation Major public infrastructure 1.17 1.55 1.10 1.49 1.95 2.00 improvements .77 .18 1.00 1.66 1.95 1.99 Include affordable housing New or improved public .73 1.15 1.07 1.64 2.00 1.69 open spaces Bring new property or .36 .64 -.12 .66 1.00 1.69 sales taxes

Two or more races -.10

.84

Don't know/ Refused 1.73

.52

.87

.92

.69

1.34

1.50

1.81

.91

1.17

1.24

-.91

.03

Other

Page 30 February 2014

Q10. Support for Projects That Facilitate Implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan (n=500) Next, the respondents were asked if they supported or opposed projects that facilitate implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan. Total support registered at 74.2% (“Strongly support” 49.7%, “Somewhat support” 24.5%). Total opposition stood at just 18.3% (“Strongly oppose” 13.4%, “Somewhat oppose” 4.9%).

Strongly oppose 13.4%

DK/NA 7.5%

Somewhat oppose 4.9%

Strongly support 49.7%

Somewhat support 24.5%

Page 31 February 2014

Q10. Support for Projects That Facilitate Implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan Age Comparisons While support and opposition was generally similar among the different age groups, there was one statistically significant difference. Residents ages 18 to 24 tended to indicate in higher numbers that they strongly supported the projects.

Age 18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Strongly support

84.1%

46.7%

47.8%

43.3%

46.4%

43.3%

49.6%

Prefer not to say 49.8%

Somewhat support

11.9%

36.7%

17.1%

23.7%

25.1%

26.9%

23.9%

2.5%

Somewhat oppose

4.0%

3.1%

7.9%

8.8%

.6%

4.2%

3.5%

.0%

Strongly oppose

.0%

13.4%

18.0%

10.1%

19.5%

14.0%

13.3%

33.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

9.1%

14.2%

8.4%

11.7%

9.7%

14.7%

n=500

Page 32 February 2014

Q10. Support for Projects That Facilitate Implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan Zip Code Comparisons In terms of zip code of residence, significantly higher levels of the response “Strongly support” were offered by those living in zip code area 90401, and significantly higher levels of “Somewhat support” by residents in the 90402 zip code.

n=500

90401

90402

90403

90404

90405

Strongly support

72.2%

34.2%

48.7%

44.2%

52.6%

Somewhat support

15.7%

44.9%

19.8%

27.2%

23.7%

Somewhat oppose

4.0%

1.7%

7.5%

2.1%

6.3%

Strongly oppose

5.5%

15.1%

9.4%

19.6%

13.3%

Don't know/Refused

2.5%

4.1%

14.7%

7.0%

4.2%

Page 33 February 2014

Q10. Support for Projects That Facilitate Implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan Living North or South of the 10 Freeway Comparisons Residents who live south of the 10 Freeway more frequently stated they both somewhat support and somewhat oppose the proposed projects.

n=182 Strongly support

Live North or South of the 10 Freeway North of South of Don't know/ the 10 the 10 Refused 54.6% 44.6% 23.0%

Somewhat support

19.5%

37.6%

33.7%

Somewhat oppose

.2%

10.4%

.0%

Strongly oppose

19.0%

6.1%

22.6%

Don't know/Refused

6.8%

1.3%

20.6%

Page 34 February 2014

Q10. Support for Projects That Facilitate Implementation of the Bergamot Area Plan Ethnicity Comparisons The Latino/Hispanic residents tended to indicae higher levels of the “Strongly support” response, whereas African-American/Black and Caucasian/White residents more frequently gave a “Strongly oppose” answer to this question.

n=500 Strongly support

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 42.2% 59.8% 45.4% 69.4% 4.8% 69.1%

Two or more races 53.7%

28.7%

Don't know/ Refused 27.3%

Other

Somewhat support

15.9%

15.1%

25.2%

26.6%

95.2%

30.8%

23.9%

41.5%

33.6%

Somewhat oppose

.0%

7.4%

5.1%

1.7%

.0%

.0%

12.3%

.0%

9.4%

Strongly oppose

36.0%

9.1%

15.2%

.5%

.0%

.1%

6.1%

12.4%

29.7%

Don't know/Refused

5.9%

8.6%

8.9%

1.8%

.0%

.0%

4.1%

17.4%

.0%

Page 35 February 2014

Q11. Concern About Possible Outcomes of Development (n=500) When residents were asked to state their level of concern for possible outcomes of new development in the City of Santa Monica, all of the possible outcomes registered concern to varying degrees. Residents were most concerned about transportation issues with “Increased traffic” garnering the highest score, followed by “Competition for parking.”

Tier 1

1.5

Increased traffic

1.32

Competition for parking

1.07

Increased crime

1.04

Too many people

1.04

Tier 2

Increased homelessness

0.86

Damaging character of Santa Monica

Tier 3

0.77

Damaging character of my neighborhood

0.61

Damaging character of downtown -2

-1

0

Not at All Concerned Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “Very Concerned 5” = +2, “4” = +1, “3” = 0, “2” = -1, and “Not at All Concerned” = -2.

1

2 Very Concerned Page 36 February 2014

Q11. Concern About Possible Outcomes of Development Gender and Age Comparisons Overall, women tended to report higher levels of concern for the possible outcomes, with the exception of “Damaging character of Santa Monica” and “Damaging character of my neighborhood.” Generally speaking, residents in the older age groups (35 years and older) tended to express higher levels of concern than those ages 18 to 34.

Gender n=500

Age

Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64

65+

Increased traffic

1.36

1.62

.82

1.37

1.72

1.48

1.81

1.82

1.44

Prefer not to say 1.97

Competition for parking

1.21

1.43

.95

1.20

1.33

1.36

1.60

1.72

1.30

1.36

Damaging character of Santa Monica

.92

.82

.08

.29

.88

1.08

1.37

1.41

1.23

1.28

Too many people

.91

1.15

.60

.57

1.36

1.05

1.32

1.44

1.12

1.70

Increased crime

.81

1.25

.72

.80

1.15

1.16

1.09

1.53

1.03

1.50

Increased homelessness Damaging character of my neighborhood Damaging character of downtown

.81

1.30

.82

.75

1.38

1.04

.93

1.30

1.26

1.19

.77

.76

-.16

.27

.85

1.04

1.15

1.38

.97

1.73

.47

.73

.38

-.15

.80

.82

1.06

1.22

.76

1.04

Page 37 February 2014

Q11. Concern About Possible Outcomes of Development Ethnicity Comparisons African-American/Black, Asian-American, and Caucasian/White residents indicated higher levels of concern regarding “Too many people.” In addition, African-American/Black residents tended to more frequently indicate higher levels of concern for “Increased crime,” “Damaging character of my neighborhood,” and “Damaging character of Downtown.” Asian-American residents expressed higher levels of concern about “Increased traffic” than the other ethnic groups.

n=500 Damaging character of my neighborhood Too many people

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or more races

Other

Don't know/ Refused

1.80

.80

.74

.51

1.00

-1.38

.94

.20

1.61

1.75

1.63

1.05

.50

1.05

-.77

.21

.64

1.76

Increased crime

1.74

.74

1.07

.67

.05

2.00

1.95

1.53

1.35

Increased homelessness Damaging character of Santa Monica Competition for parking

1.58

1.23

1.02

.91

1.00

2.00

1.50

1.46

1.24

1.57

1.01

.86

.73

1.90

-.69

.65

-.15

.79

1.48

1.67

1.28

1.27

1.95

1.38

1.36

1.05

1.32

Increased traffic Damaging character of downtown

1.47

1.91

1.49

1.25

1.95

2.00

.94

2.00

1.95

1.47

.69

.61

.52

1.05

-.69

-.41

.67

.77

Page 38 February 2014

Q12. Importance of Possible Outcomes of Development (n=500) When presented with possible outcomes of development in the City of Santa Monica and asked to give their opinion on the level of importance for each, “Improved economy” and “Creation of new jobs” topped the list. In addition, each of the outcomes received scores indicating they held some level of importance to the residents.

Tier 1

1.26

Improved economy

1.1

Creation of new jobs 0.75

Improved city and school tax base

0.74

Improving character of Santa Monica

0.71

Improving character of downtown

0.65

Improving character of my neighborhood

0.62

Tier 2

Adding affordable housing

Tier 3

0.45

Improving retail and service choices

0.26

Providing distinctive architecture -2

-1

0

Not at All Important Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: “Very Important 5” = +2, “4” = +1, “3” = 0, “2” = -1, and “Not at All Important 1” = -2.

1

2 Very Important Page 39 February 2014

Q12. Importance of Possible Outcomes of Development Age Comparisons The reported levels of perceived importance were mostly similar among the different age groups with a couple exceptions. Residents ages 18 to 24 indicated significantly higher levels of importance for “Improved economy,” and residents ages 18 to 34 stated higher levels of importance for “Adding affordable housing.”

Age n=500 Improved economy

1.73

1.46

1.40

.94

.99

1.17

1.14

Prefer not to say .92

Adding affordable housing

1.55

1.12

.58

.34

.55

.80

.55

.97

Creation of new jobs

1.33

1.22

1.20

.80

1.17

.89

1.07

1.07

Improved city and school tax base

1.24

.78

.88

.65

.63

.52

.54

.32

Improving character of downtown

1.03

.46

.77

.47

1.00

.86

.45

1.17

Improving character of my neighborhood

.94

.51

.64

.71

.78

.59

.45

.43

Improving character of Santa Monica

.76

.47

.76

.57

1.01

1.08

.72

1.47

Improving retail and service choices

.69

.55

.45

.18

.51

.68

.38

-.05

Providing distinctive architecture

.44

.22

.22

.07

.40

.37

.25

1.10

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64

65+

Page 40 February 2014

Q12. Importance of Possible Outcomes of Development Zip Code Comparisons The outcome “Adding affordable housing” registered higher levels of importance among residents who live in the 90401, 90403 and 90404 zip codes. Residents in zip code 90402 more frequently mentioned “Providing distinctive architecture” as important, while residents in 90401 zip code also placed high importance on “Improving character of Downtown” than residents in the other zip codes.

n=500

90401

90402

90403

90404

90405

Improved economy

1.43

1.03

1.12

1.34

1.32

Improving character of downtown

1.25

.74

.74

.59

.43

Creation of new jobs

1.08

1.05

1.02

1.27

1.03

Improving character of my neighborhood

1.08

.59

.47

.63

.62

Adding affordable housing

.96

.04

.87

.90

.63

Improving character of Santa Monica

.83

.84

.78

.63

.66

Providing distinctive architecture

.53

.77

.28

-.03

.28

Improved city and school tax base

.46

.75

.54

.97

.79

Improving retail and service choices

.25

.46

.53

.49

.41

Page 41 February 2014

Q12. Importance of Possible Outcomes of Development Living East or West of 20th Street Comparisons Respondents who live east of 20th Street stated higher levels of importance for the outcomes “”Improved city and school tax base,” “Adding affordable housing,” “Improving retail and service choices,” and “Improving character of downtown.”

n=267 Improved economy

Live East or West of 20th Street East of 20th West of 20th Don't know/ Street Street Refused 1.42 1.10 1.42

Creation of new jobs

1.29

1.05

1.33

Adding affordable housing

1.20

.68

.53

Improved city and school tax base

1.14

.48

.87

Improving character of downtown

.92

.45

1.43

Improving character of Santa Monica

.89

.54

1.50

Improving retail and service choices

.77

.34

.64

Improving character of my neighborhood

.74

.40

.94

Providing distinctive architecture

.27

.01

.43

Page 42 February 2014

Q12. Importance of Possible Outcomes of Development Ethnicity Comparisons The responses regarding importance of potential outcomes of development were fairly homogenous among the different ethnic groups. However, Latino/Hispanic residents reported higher levels of importance for “Improved city and school tax base,” “Creation of new jobs.” “Adding affordable housing,” and “Improving retail and service choices.”

n=500 Creation of new jobs Improving character of downtown Improved city and school tax base Improved economy Improving character of my neighborhood Adding affordable housing Providing distinctive architecture Improving character of Santa Monica Improving retail and service choices

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black 1.27 1.40 .96 1.52 2.00 1.31

Two or more races 1.10

1.15

Don't know/ Refused 1.06

Other

1.06

1.08

.50

.97

.00

1.69

.46

.98

.49

.82

1.41

.49

1.45

.10

1.31

.71

.48

.56

.80

1.44

1.22

1.51

.05

2.00

.81

1.55

1.14

.78

.77

.49

1.02

.10

2.00

.59

.28

1.35

.74

.31

.64

1.62

2.00

.61

.74

.76

.58

.49

.58

.16

.62

1.00

1.38

-.14

-.07

-.34

.41

.82

.67

.96

.10

2.00

.39

1.09

.61

.13

.75

.35

1.06

1.00

1.38

-.12

.12

-.24

Page 43 February 2014

Key Findings – Urban Form / Aesthetics

Q13. Opinion on How Development Will Affect the Character of Downtown (n=500) In the next section of the survey, respondents were read a series of differing opinions and asked to indicate which was most like their own opinion. In the first set illustrated in the chart below, residents were almost evenly divided on whether they felt development would improve (42.2%) or hurt (47.2%) the character of Downtown Santa Monica.

Mixed Neither DK/NA opinions 3.5% 2.3% 4.8%

OPINION A – New development will improve the character 42.2%

OPINION B – New development will hurt the character 47.2%

Page 45 February 2014

Q13. Opinion on How Development Will Affect the Character of Downtown Age Comparisons In terms of age, the younger residents ages 25 to 34 were more likely to indicate agreement with the opinion that development would improve the character of downtown Santa Monica. In contrast, residents ages 45 and older more frequently agreed with the opinion that development would hurt the character of downtown. Age 18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Prefer not to say

43.5%

70.1%

41.1%

37.5%

29.6%

25.3%

27.5%

19.1%

34.9%

26.7%

45.3%

49.8%

55.7%

68.2%

64.0%

63.3%

12.9%

.0%

1.8%

7.0%

12.3%

.0%

5.4%

17.6%

Neither

8.7%

3.2%

6.5%

1.7%

2.4%

4.4%

.4%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

5.4%

4.0%

.0%

2.0%

2.6%

.0%

n=500 (A) New development will improve the character of downtown Santa Monica, bringing in new businesses, entertainment, restaurants, shopping and economic vitality (B) New development will hurt the character of downtown Santa Monica, permanently changing it to a crowded city Mixed opinions

Page 46 February 2014

Q13. Opinion on How Development Will Affect the Character of Downtown Ethnicity Comparisons Latino/Hispanic residents reported higher levels of agreement with the opinion that development would improve the character of downtown, whereas African-American/Black and Caucasian/White residents felt it would hurt the character of the area. Asian-American residents stated at higher frequencies that they had mixed opinions on the subject.

n=500 (A) New development will improve the character of downtown Santa Monica, bringing in new businesses, entertainment, restaurants, shopping and economic vitality (B) New development will hurt the character of downtown Santa Monica, permanently changing it to a crowded city Mixed opinions

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or Don't more Other know/ races Refused

33.6%

33.4%

38.1%

70.1%

.0%

99.9%

67.5%

28.7%

11.7%

63.4%

42.8%

51.8%

23.0%

100.0%

.1%

29.3%

29.9%

86.0%

3.1%

14.7%

4.6%

1.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

2.3%

Neither

.0%

9.1%

2.3%

5.7%

.0%

.0%

.0%

41.5%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

3.3%

.0%

.0%

.0%

3.2%

.0%

.0%

Page 47 February 2014

Q14. Opinion on Impact of Development on Downtown Skyline (n=500) In this set of opinions, substantially more respondents agreed with the opinion that the downtown Santa Monica skyline has too many tall buildings (58.1%), as opposed to those that felt more tall, architecturally interesting buildings would enhance the downtown skyline (28.6%).

Mixed opinions 7.0%

OPINION D – The skyline of downtown Santa Monica is not very interesting 28.6%

Neither 4.9%

DK/NA 1.4% OPINION C – The skyline of downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings 58.1%

Page 48 February 2014

Q14. Opinion on Impact of Development on Downtown Skyline Age Comparisons Not surprisingly, the younger residents (ages 18 to 44) tended to agree that the skyline was not very interesting and more tall buildings would be a benefit. Residents in the age groups 45 to 59 and 65 and older were more likely to report that they agreed with the opinion that the skyline already has too many tall buildings.

Age n=500

18-24

(C) The skyline of downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings, any more tall 37.4% buildings would make it worse (D) The skyline of downtown Santa Monica is not very interesting, more tall, architecturally 48.1% interesting buildings would make it more distinctive Mixed opinions 6.4%

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Prefer not to say

47.5%

41.6%

65.6%

73.8%

70.3%

77.3%

78.1%

34.0%

40.9%

25.1%

14.5%

21.3%

14.3%

5.6%

10.8%

9.2%

6.3%

8.7%

1.9%

1.8%

16.3%

Neither

8.0%

7.7%

4.7%

.8%

.6%

4.5%

6.6%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

3.6%

2.2%

2.4%

2.1%

.0%

.0%

Page 49 February 2014

Q14. Opinion on Impact of Development on Downtown Skyline Ethnicity Comparisons Asian-American and Latino/Hispanic respondents tended to indicate at higher levels that they would welcome more tall, architecturally interesting buildings downtown, whereas Caucasian/White respondents more frequently said they agreed with the opinion that downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings.

n=500

(C) The skyline of downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings, any more tall buildings would make it worse (D) The skyline of downtown Santa Monica is not very interesting, more tall, architecturally interesting buildings would make it more distinctive Mixed opinions

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or Don't more Other know/ races Refused

64.8%

48.4%

62.6%

35.5%

95.2%

30.9%

74.4% 52.8%

79.5%

34.5%

45.4%

20.9%

56.7%

4.8%

69.1%

22.4%

.1%

16.0%

.7%

6.1%

8.4%

4.7%

.0%

.0%

.0%

5.6%

4.5%

Neither

.0%

.0%

6.2%

3.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

41.5%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

2.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

3.2%

.0%

.0%

Page 50 February 2014

Q14. Opinion on Impact of Development on Downtown Skyline Intensity of Traffic Concerns When compared by the intensity of respondents concerns with increased traffic as a possible outcome of new development, those that were most concerned with increased traffic were most likely to agree with the opinion “The skyline of downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings, any more tall buildings would make it worse.” 11A. Possible Outcome: Increased Traffic 1 - Not at 5 - Very all 2 3 4 DK/NA concerned concerned (C) The skyline of downtown Santa Monica already has too many tall buildings, any more tall buildings would make it worse 14. Opinion - The skyline (D) The skyline of of downtown Santa downtown Santa Monica Monica has too many tall is not very interesting, buildings/more would more tall, architecturally make it distinctive interesting buildings would make it more distinctive Mixed opinions Neither Don't know/Refused

22.6%

100.0%

55.4%

48.6%

62.3%

16.3%

62.9%

0.0%

41.6%

41.3%

23.4%

0.0%

0.0% 14.5% 0.0%

0.0% .0% 0.0%

2.9% 0.0% 0.0%

4.1% 6.0% 0.0%

8.5% 4.0% 1.8%

0.0% 65.3% 18.4% Page 51 February 2014

Q15. Opinion on Impact of Development of Hotels with “For Sale Condos” (n=500) Slightly fewer residents agreed with the opinion that “for sale condos” included in the development of hotels is good for downtown Santa Monica (37.3%), as opposed to those who agreed with the opinion that it was not good for the downtown area (44.1%).

Mixed opinions 7.6%

Neither 6.7%

DK/NA 4.2%

OPINION E – “for sale condos” brings permanent residents and is good for downtown Santa Monica 37.3%

OPINION F – “for sale condos” builds luxury housing and is not good for downtown Santa Monica 44.1%

Page 52 February 2014

Q15. Opinion on Impact of Development of Hotels with “For Sale Condos” Ethnicity Comparisons Asian-American and Latino/Hispanic residents tended to indicate more agreement with the opinion that hotels with “for sale condos” is good for downtown Santa Monica, while Caucasian/White residents were more likely to agree with the opinion that this component of hotel development would have a negative impact on the area.

n=500

(E) Current hotel projects include “for sale condos” to obtain financing. This approach brings permanent residents and is good for downtown Santa Monica (F) Current hotel projects include “for sale condos” to obtain financing. This approach builds luxury housing and is not good for downtown Santa Monica Mixed opinions

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or Don't more Other know/ races Refused

41.3%

54.7%

30.2%

59.4%

.0%

99.9%

53.5%

23.3%

11.7%

52.9%

29.9%

49.2%

27.5%

100.0%

.0%

38.4%

22.8%

61.1%

.0%

9.1%

8.8%

5.3%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

6.6%

Neither

5.9%

6.3%

6.3%

6.4%

.0%

.1%

4.9%

41.5%

14.1%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

5.5%

1.4%

.0%

.0%

3.2%

12.3%

6.5%

Page 53 February 2014

Q16. Opinion on Height of New Downtown Buildings Affecting Creation of Open Space (n=500) Somewhat more residents agreed with the opinion that new buildings in downtown Santa Monica should be kept as low as possible regardless of the impact on open space (45.8%), over those that agreed with the opinion that new buildings should be taller and thinner to create more open space (35.6%).

Mixed opinions 6.7%

Neither 8.4%

DK/NA 3.5%

OPINION G – New buildings in downtown Santa Monica should be taller, thinner and architecturally distinct 35.6%

OPINION H – New buildings in Downtown Santa Monica should be kept as low as possible 45.8%

Page 54 February 2014

Q16. Opinion on Height of New Downtown Buildings Affecting Creation of Open Space Age Comparisons Residents ages 18 to 34 were more likely to indicate agreement with the opinion that building downtown should be taller and thinner to create more open space. Conversely, residents ages 45 to 59 and 65 and older tended to agree with the opinion that buildings downtown should be kept low even if it doesn’t leave room for open space. Age n=500 (G) New buildings in downtown Santa Monica should be taller, thinner and architecturally distinct to create more open space (H) New buildings in Downtown Santa Monica should be kept as low as possible even if it doesn’t leave room for as much open space Mixed opinion Neither Don't know/Refused

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Prefer not to say

54.3%

59.0%

35.1%

21.9%

26.1%

18.3%

24.1%

17.9%

27.8%

31.1%

37.6%

57.4%

63.6%

56.7%

54.7%

82.1%

6.5%

3.8%

11.3%

10.8%

3.0%

7.3%

3.9%

.0%

11.4%

6.0%

10.7%

6.7%

4.8%

15.6%

8.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

5.3%

3.2%

2.4%

2.1%

9.2%

.0%

Page 55 February 2014

Q16. Opinion on Height of New Downtown Buildings Affecting Creation of Open Space Intensity of Traffic Concerns When compared by the intensity of respondents concerns with increased traffic as a possible outcome of new development, those that were most concerned with increased traffic were moderately more likely to agree with the opinion that “New buildings in Downtown Santa Monica should be kept as low as possible even if it doesn't leave room for open space.” 11A. Possible Outcome: Increased Traffic

16. Opinion - New buildings should be taller/as low as possible

(G) New buildings in downtown Santa Monica should be taller, thinner and architecturally distinct to create more open space (H) New buildings in Downtown Santa Monica should be kept as low as possible even if it doesn't leave room for open space Mixed opinion Neither Don't know/Refused

1 - Not at all concerned

2

3

4

5 - Very concerned

DK/NA

63.3%

31.6%

63.7%

35.3%

31.8%

0.0%

25.7%

68.4%

16.3%

52.1%

48.1%

16.3%

0.0% 6.7% 4.3%

0.0% .0% 0.0%

4.0% 16.0% 0.0%

10.4% 1.6% .5%

6.6% 9.3% 4.2%

49.0% 16.3% 18.4%

Page 56 February 2014

Q17. Opinion on Whether New Downtown Development Should Include New Hotels (n=500) Significantly more respondents agreed with the opinion that new development in downtown Santa Monica should include new hotels for the reason that they generate revenue and create relatively little traffic (48.9%), in comparison with those who agreed with the opinion that hotels should not be included in such development because they bring in more visitors (35.6%)

Mixed opinions 9.4% OPINION J – New development in Downtown Santa Monica should not include new hotels 35.6%

Neither DK/NA 3.5% 2.6%

OPINION I – New development in Downtown Santa Monica should include new hotels 48.9%

Page 57 February 2014

Q17. Opinion on Whether New Downtown Development Should Include New Hotels Age Comparisons The younger residents (ages 18 to 34) tended to agree more frequently with the opinion that development in downtown Santa Monica should include new hotels. On the other hand, residents ages 65 and older tended to agree with the opinion that development should not include more hotels.

Age n=500

18-24

(I) New development in Downtown Santa Monica should include new hotels because they generate 73.7% revenue for the community and generate relatively little traffic (J) New development in Downtown Santa Monica should not include new hotels because they just 17.7% bring in more visitors Mixed opinion 4.6%

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Prefer not to say

64.0%

44.5%

38.4%

42.1%

44.9%

40.3%

19.1%

28.3%

28.1%

40.6%

41.8%

44.3%

47.9%

63.3%

7.7%

13.8%

14.8%

13.1%

4.3%

3.6%

17.6%

Neither

4.0%

.0%

5.5%

4.0%

3.0%

1.3%

1.3%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

.0%

.0%

8.1%

2.2%

.0%

5.2%

7.0%

.0%

Page 58 February 2014

Q17. Opinion on Whether New Downtown Development Should Include New Hotels Ethnicity Comparisons In terms of differences among ethnic groups, Latino/Hispanic respondents were more likely to agree with the opinion that development downtown should new hotels. Conversely, African-American/Black and Caucasian/White respondents tended to agree with the opinion that new development should not include new hotels. Asian-American residents were more likely to indicate they held mixed opinions on the subject.

n=500 (I) New development in Downtown Santa Monica should include new hotels because they generate revenue for the community and generate relatively little traffic (J) New development in Downtown Santa Monica should not include new hotels because they just bring in more visitors Mixed opinion

AfricanAsian- Caucasian/ Latino/ Native Pacific American/ American White Hispanic American Islander Black

Two or Don't more Other know/ races Refused

22.9%

59.4%

44.8%

71.8%

100.0%

99.9%

36.9%

70.1%

27.6%

60.4%

13.6%

39.8%

22.9%

.0%

.1%

46.7%

17.5%

40.1%

10.7%

23.8%

8.6%

3.5%

.0%

.0%

.9%

.0%

20.7%

Neither

.0%

.0%

2.9%

1.8%

.0%

.0%

12.3%

12.3%

.0%

Don't know/Refused

6.0%

3.2%

3.9%

.0%

.0%

.0%

3.2%

.0%

11.6%

Page 59 February 2014

Q18. Preferences for Types of Development (n=500) Next, the survey respondents were asked in an open-end format what type of development they would prefer for downtown Santa Monica. The most frequent answers were “Traffic control/Better parking/More affordable parking,” “Open space/Parks/Trees,” “Non-chain stores/Small business/Restaurants/Night life,” and “No development/Stop/Slow/Growth.” All the remaining responses garnered less than ten percent mentions. 15.8% 15.6% 14.9%

Traffic control/Better parking/More affordable parking Open space/Parks/Trees Non-chain stores/Small business/Restaurants/Night life No development/Stop/Slow/Growth Affordable rents/Housing/Retail rental space With height limits/New hotels/Condos/Apartments Build revenue based business Good as it is now Restore to previous appearance/Historical architecture Museums/Art/Cultural Better public transportation Very little Wal-Mart/Target/Discount stores Post office Nothing/None Don't go there/Much Other mention Undecided/Need more information DK/NA/Unsure

12.2%

9.6% 7.5% 5.4% 4.9% 4.7% 4.0% 2.8% 1.7% 1.1% 0.1% 8.9% 0.8% 9.2% 0.3% 3.1% 0%

10%

20% Page 60 February 2014

Q19. Support for Height Limits in DSPF (n=500) After the detailed questions within the survey, total support for the height limits proposed in the Santa Monica Downtown Specific Plan among all residents was at 68.6 percent (47.9% “Strongly support” and 20.7% “Somewhat support”), which is slightly lower than but statistically unchanged from support registered in the initial test. Total opposition increased slightly to 25.4 percent, when compared with the initial test (22.7%).

68.6% 47.9%

Final Test

20.7%

9.0%

16.4%

6.1%

71.1% 49.9%

Initial Test

0%

20%

Strongly support

21.2%

40% Somewhat support

60% Somewhat oppose

9.7%

13.0%

80% Strongly oppose

6.1%

100% DK/NA Page 61 February 2014

Q19. Support for Height Limits in DSPF Zip Code Comparisons Residents in the 90401 zip code tended to indicate higher levels of “Strongly support” in response to this question, while those living in the 90402 and 90404 zip codes more frequently said they “Somewhat oppose” the height limits in the Plan.

n=500

90401

90402

90403

90404

90405

Strongly support

66.6%

54.8%

42.7%

52.4%

40.9%

Somewhat support

20.2%

14.4%

21.0%

14.8%

27.5%

Somewhat oppose

3.2%

16.2%

8.2%

15.4%

3.7%

Strongly oppose

10.0%

14.5%

19.7%

10.4%

21.3%

.0%

.0%

8.4%

7.1%

6.6%

Don't know/Refused

Page 62 February 2014

Summary

Summary  The survey revealed that a plurality of respondents (41.7%) believe the City of Santa Monica is going in the right direction, but a statistically similar portion (33.9%) believe it is going in the wrong direction.  The survey results found that respondents liked the “Restaurants/Shopping/Entertainment” features of downtown Santa Monica the most. Contrastingly, respondents clearly indicated that “Traffic/Congestion” and “Parking” issues were the features of downtown they liked the least.  Just over a third of the respondents (36.7%) were aware of the Downtown Specific Plan Framework.  Nearly three-quarters of the respondents (71.1%) indicated they support the height limits in the Downtown Specific Plan Framework. Although, only two in five respondents support allowing three potential hotel projects to exceed the height limit.  Demographically, younger respondents and Latinos were generally more likely to see the City going the right direction and were more supportive of downtown development. Page 64 February 2014

Summary II  Traffic related issues, including concern about worsening traffic as an outcome of new development or support for potential solutions, was a consistent theme throughout the survey. Parking related issues were the second consistent theme in the survey. Conversely, improving the economy and creating new jobs were seen as the most important outcomes of new development.  Nearly three-quarters of the respondents (74.2%), indicated support for the Bergamot Area Plan.

Page 65 February 2014

Appendix A: Additional Voter Information

Gender

Male 47.4% Female 52.6%

Page 67 February 2014

Age

40 to 44 10.8%

35 to 39 7.8%

45 to 49 7.2%

50 to 54 9.5%

30 to 34 14.6% 55 to 59 8.5%

25 to 29 7.1% 18 to 24 8.3%

Prefer not to say/NA 1.2%

65+ years 17.6%

60 to 64 7.5%

Page 68 February 2014

Live in Santa Monica

No 0.0%

Yes 100.0%

Page 69 February 2014

Zip Code

90403 26.4%

90402 7.6%

90401 9.3%

90404 27.1%

90405 29.6%

Page 70 February 2014

Live North or South of the 10 Freeway

North of the 10 73.3%

DK/NA 2.7%

South of the 10 23.9%

Page 71 February 2014

Live East or West of 20th Street

West of 20th Street 57.7%

East of 20th Street 39.5%

DK/NA 2.8%

Page 72 February 2014

Length of Residence in Santa Monica

11-15 years 11.7% 7-10 years 14.9%

16-20 years 12.9%

5-6 years 8.7%

3-4 years 9.9%