Council advances Mills Act review and aligns landmarks work plan after split vote

The City Council spent substantial time on Item 16b — a set of proposals to reprioritize staff work and reconsider the Mills Act program or its administration.

Council members disagreed on timing and scope. Supporters of delaying or pausing aspects of the Mills Act argued the program represents a taxpayer subsidy that can concentrate benefits for high‑value properties and that equity considerations justify reevaluation. Opponents worried that an in‑year pause could create legal and fairness risks for applicants already preparing preservation work.

The city attorney and planning director told the council that Santa Monica’s ordinance limits discretionary denial of Mills Act contracts when specific findings are met and that applications take months to prepare; the planning director estimated the city typically receives about three to four Mills Act applications annually and that the program’s application cutoff is generally in May for an October process schedule.

Procedurally the council bifurcated the item and then voted on the Mills Act portion (the portion that Mayor Pro Tem Zwick could participate in after recusal on other related housing matters). The council approved moving forward with the Mills Act review and aligning Landmarks work plans with the commission’s recommendations; recorded roll calls during the motion show a majority in favor with one dissent on the Mills Act motion. Councilors also directed staff to return with a study/report and suggested any pause or program changes should include reasonable notice to prospective applicants so they can complete in‑process work.

What the council decided (summary): the council did not implement an immediate blanket moratorium on Mills Act applications; instead it advanced a staff‑driven review, asked for clearer community notice and timing options (for example, future effective dates), and instructed staff to align the Mills Act review with a broader landmarks work plan and related equity considerations.

Next steps: staff will return with written analysis, timing options and public‑notice proposals as directed; council members asked for a date‑certain follow up so the item does not remain open indefinitely.