Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, August 27, 2024 (part 6 of 7)

City Council Meeting: August 27, 2024 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.08.095 PROHIBITION AGAINST

CAMPING IN PUBLIC PLACES
WHEREAS, in 2022, the City of Santa Monica amended Municipal Code Section

4.08.095 to comply with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, which required public entities to allow the homeless to sleep on public property, with certain conditions and exceptions; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court recently reversed the Ninth Circuit ruling, and held that regulation of sleeping/camping in public should largely be deferred to local jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the Municipal Code to repeal the amendments made in 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 4.08.095 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

4.08.095 Prohibition against camping in public places.
(a) No person shall camp in a prohibited public place.
(b) For the purpose of this Section:
(1) “Camp” means to erect, maintain, or occupy a camp facility for the purpose of living accommodations.
(2) “Camp facility” means the use of, settling, fixing in place, setting up,

10.D.a
Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: A-Proposed Ordinance (6575 : Camping Ordinance)

Page 2 of 4 ends

locating, or leaving behind in a prohibited public place any or a combination of the following: tents, huts, other temporary physical shelters, cots, beds, sleeping bags, or hammocks, or bedrolls.
(3) “Prohibited public place” means any of the following: the public parks listed in Section 4.08.091, public beaches, the Santa Monica Municipal Pier, public streets, public alleyways, public parking lots, public passageways, public rights-of-way, publicly-owned landscaped areas or greenbelts, public educational institutions including properties owned by the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District or Santa Monica College, or other government-owned properties located within the City of Santa Monica.
(c) The City Council may, by majority vote, establish one or more specified camping areas. Such camping areas, if any, may be located in prohibited public places, except that such camping areas shall not be located within public parks. (d) This ordinance does not prohibit those who are homeless from using sleeping bags, blankets, pillows, and/or bedrolls while sleeping.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

10.D.a
Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: A-Proposed Ordinance (6575 : Camping Ordinance)

Page 3 of 4 ends

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

10.D.a
Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: A-Proposed Ordinance (6575 : Camping Ordinance) Current City Ordinances. Applicable current Santa Monica City ordinances:
§ 4.08.093 Penalties.

Any persons violating the provisions of Sections 4.08.094 through 4.08.095 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined in an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars or imprisoned for a period not to exceed six months, or both. In the case of a person who is granted probation for repeated violation of any offense under Sections 4.08.094 through

4.08.095, the court may issue, or direct the issuance of, an injunction or "stay away" order to abate and prevent the continuance or recurrence of such violation. § 4.08.095 Prohibition against camping in public places. (a) No person shall camp in a prohibited public place.
(b) For the purpose of this Section:
(1) “Camp” means to erect, maintain, store, or occupy a camp facility for the purpose of living accommodations.
(2) “Camp facility” means the use of, settling, fixing in place, setting up, storing, locating, or leaving behind in a prohibited public place any or a combination of the following: tents, huts, other temporary physical shelters, cots, beds, or hammocks. (3) “Prohibited public place” means any of the following: the public parks listed in Section

4.55.020, public beaches, the Santa Monica Municipal Pier, public streets, public alleyways, public parking lots, public passageways, public rights-of-way, publicly-owned landscaped areas or greenbelts, public educational institutions including properties owned by the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District or Santa Monica College, or other government-owned properties located within the City of Santa Monica.
(c) The City Council may, by majority vote, establish one or more specified camping areas.

Such camping areas, if any, may be located in prohibited public places, except that such camping areas shall not be located within public parks. (d) This Section does not prohibit those who are homeless from using sleeping bags, blankets, pillows, and/or bedrolls while sleeping.
§ 4.08.097 Prohibition against sitting or lying in doorways at night. (a) No person shall sit or lie down in any entrance to a building in the downtown, Main Street,

10.D.b
Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: B-Existing Santa Monica Ordinances (6575 : Camping Ordinance) Broadway, Colorado Avenue, Lincoln Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica Boulevard, and Wilshire Boulevard areas between the hours of eleven p.m. and seven a.m. if that entrance is posted with a sign prohibiting such conduct.
(b) As used in this Section, the following items shall have the following meanings:
(1) “Downtown” means the area bounded by and including the west side of Ocean Avenue, the north side of Wilshire Boulevard, the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, and the south side of Pico Boulevard.
(2) “Main Street area” means the area bounded by and including the west side of Neilsen Way, the north side of Pico Boulevard, the east side of Main Street from Pico Boulevard to Strand Street, the north side of Strand Street to Second Street, the east side of Second Street and the City's southern border.
(3) “Broadway” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City's eastern border.
(4) “Colorado Avenue” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City's eastern border.
(5) “Lincoln Boulevard” means the area bounded by the north side of Wilshire Boulevard and the City's southern border.
(6) “Pico Boulevard” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City's eastern border.
(7) “Santa Monica Boulevard” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City's eastern border.
(8) “Wilshire Boulevard” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue to the City's eastern border.
(9) “Building” means any building, other than a building used for solely residential purposes, located in the areas specified in subsections (b)(1)—(b)(8). (10) “Entrance” means the entire area between the outer edge of any entrance to a building and any exterior door and includes entry ways, doorways, vestibules, alcoves, and areas located under cantilevers.
(c) Any person violating the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor which

10.D.b
Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: B-Existing Santa Monica Ordinances (6575 : Camping Ordinance) shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars per violation, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(d) The prohibition contained in this Section shall not apply to any person sitting or lying down in any entrance to a building due to a medical emergency. § 3.12.360 Obstructing, leaving or placing property on, or sitting or lying on public rights-of-way or public property.
(a) Sitting or Lying on Sidewalks or In the Promenade Roadway in the Bayside Conservation District of the Downtown Area.
(1) During the hours between six a.m. and one a.m., no person shall:
(A) Sit or lie down upon a public sidewalk in the Bayside Conservation District or upon the Third Street Promenade;
(B) Sit or lie down upon a blanket, chair, stool, bench or any other object placed or installed on a public sidewalk in the Bayside Conservation District or the Third Street Promenade; or (C) Sit, stand, lie down upon or otherwise be present upon any planting, railing, topiary or statue placed upon or installed on a public sidewalk in the Bayside Conservation District or the Third Street Promenade.
(2) The prohibition contained in this Section shall not apply to any person:
(A) Sitting or lying down on a public sidewalk or the Third Street Promenade due to a medical emergency;
(B) Utilizing a wheelchair, walker or similar device to move about the public sidewalk or the Third Street Promenade as the result of a disability;
(C) Sitting while operating or patronizing a commercial establishment or business conducted on the public sidewalk or Third Street Promenade pursuant to a street use permit, license or other City-issued authorization;
(D) Sitting while participating in or attending a parade, festival, rally, demonstration, meeting or similar special event lawfully conducted pursuant to a City-issued permit or license on the

10.D.b
Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: B-Existing Santa Monica Ordinances (6575 : Camping Ordinance) public sidewalk or Third Street Promenade;
(E) Sitting on a bollard, chair or bench located on the public sidewalk or Third Street Promenade and which is supplied by a public agency;
(F) Sitting on a ledge, step or other masonry surface which borders the fountains or topiary planters on the public sidewalk or Third Street Promenade; (G) Sitting on a public sidewalk within a bus stop zone while waiting for public or private transportation; or
(H) Giving a street performance pursuant to a permit issued by the City.

10.D.b
Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: B-Existing Santa Monica Ordinances (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 1:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; David White Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Agenda Item 10D - Opposed
Attachments: 2024-08 CC Agenda item 10D - OPPOSED.pdf

EXTERNAL
Please find our letter in opposition to agenda item 10D Cynthia Rose, Cris Gutierrez and Anya Baroff
--
Cynthia Rose
Co-Chair
Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance
SaMoSafeStreets.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance)

August 27, 2024
RE: Agenda Item 10D - Opposed
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance opposes the proposed ordinance that criminalizes homelessness and targets our most vulnerable with the abject cruelty of taking warmth and basic comfort from folks without a home by adding the mere existence of “sleeping bags, or bedrolls to the description of an encampment to section 1A and removing section 1D “This ordinance does not prohibit those who are homeless from using sleeping bags, blankets, pillows, and/or bedrolls while sleeping.” from the existing no camping ordinance.

At the same time some council members are also opposing services and supporting housing to provide opportunities for people to get off the streets!
Our City Council must be leaders with intelligence, responsibility and a heart as it solves problems. We urge you to oppose the proposed 10D ordinance and lead responsibly and honorably.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SaMoSafeStreets.org
Community Human Rights Advocate
The city has requested $515,000 from the Department of Justice to fund the STEP program, which is designed to support supportive housing through STEP court. However, this request is concerning as it coincides with efforts to criminalize homelessness and reduce the supportive housing options it promises in the DOJ proposal. There has been no indication on what supportive housing is offered through this program, how police responses will decrease, or what increases to legal -aid services will be provided to defend those without housing.

This paradoxical approach undermines the intent of the STEP program by potentially exacerbating the very issues it aims to address, creating a situation where the city seeks federal funds for supportive measures while simultaneously enacting local policies that diminish the availability of support for the unhoused population. If not addressed properly the city risks violating the Federal False Claims Act 31 (U.S.C. §§ tel:3729-3733)
*STEP Court -- Shelter, Treatment, and Empowerment Program Court; connecting low-level offenders with necessary services to obtain mental health treatment, addiction treatment, and empowerment program. | Bureau of Justice Assistance https://mayor.lacity.gov/sites/g/files/wph2066/files/2024-01/CIRCLE_FAQ_English_Spanish_Jan%202024.pdf\ Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Daphne Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 5:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Council Mailbox
Subject: Opposition to items 10 D, 16G, and 16J

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
I urge you to reject items 10D, 16G and J on this evening’s agenda. As a 50-year resident of the City, a member of the City’s 1984-85 Homeless Task Force, and a social services professional, I am very aware of the many challenges in the fight to end homelessness. I find the proposed measures ill-advised because they are not solution-oriented and they are heartless. Please support the programs we know are working and build the housing with services we know provides safety and security for both people who were formerly unhoused, and their resident and business neighbors.

Respectfully,
Daphne Dennis
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 2 David Yakobson
From: Laura Joy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSED

All three of these proposals run counter to every evidence-based best practice for solving homelessness and will without a doubt make our current crisis worse. And yet most stunning of all is the sheer cruelty of what is being proposed. To simultaneously deny an unhoused person a blanket and an alternative place to sleep is both mean and absurd.

Re: Item 10D, Santa Monica already has an anti-camping ordinance, as well as laws against sitting, lying, and sleeping in doorways, sidewalks, parks, and countless other places. Making it illegal for unhoused people to use a blanket or pillow will not make them disappear. It will simply expose desperate people with nowhere to go to even more inhumane conditions, further jeopardizing their health and safety and quite possibly their lives, as more unhoused people die from cold weather in Los Angeles each year than in New York City.

Re: Item 16G, harm reduction programs are evidence-based best practices that have been continually proven to prevent fatal overdoses, curb the spread of infectious disease, reduce costly ER visits, and connect people to substance-use treatment options. Proposals to eliminate these programs in Santa Monica would lead to more preventable deaths and less opportunities for people to get clean – and, as it stands, state law and County Department of Public Health policies supersede our local powers, thereby rendering this request illegal and unenforceable.

Re: Item 16J, removing all the permanent supportive housing (PSH) from the proposed affordable housing project on city-owned surface parking lots off Wilshire would senselessly deny the housing we so desperately need to get people off our streets. In addition, it will jeopardize the financial viability of the entire project, as competitive state funding for affordable housing strongly prioritizes proposals that include supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals.

I have always trusted that Santa Monica was a compassionate, humane city that believed in science and reason and treated everyone with dignity and respect. Please do not give in to the loudest and most hateful voices in our community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and counterproductive proposals and do what is best for our city.

Laura Joy, 90405
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 3 David Yakobson
From: John Given <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Items 10D, 16G and 16J

In addition, it will jeopardize the financial
viability of the entire project, as competitive
state funding for affordable housing strongly
prioritizes proposals that include supportive
housing for formerly homeless individuals.

Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 4 I have always trusted that Santa Monica was a
compassionate, humane city that believed in
science and reason and treated everyone with
dignity and respect. Please do not give in to the
loudest and most hateful voices in our
community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and
counterproductive proposals and do what is
best for our city.

John Given
90405

JOHN GIVEN
[email protected]
310-430-1018
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 5 David Yakobson
From: AlanToy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 2:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSED

And yet most stunning of all is the sheer cruelty of what is being proposed. To simultaneously deny an unhoused
person a blanket and an alternative place to sleep is both mean and absurd.Re: Item 10D, Santa Monica already has
an anti-camping ordinance, as well as laws against sitting, lying, and sleeping in doorways, sidewalks, parks, and
countless other places.

Making it illegal for unhoused people to use a blanket or pillow will not make them disappear. It will simply expose desperate people with nowhere to go to even more
inhumane conditions, further jeopardizing their health and safety and quite possibly their lives, as more unhoused Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 6 people die from cold weather in Los Angeles each year than in New York City.

Re: Item 16G, harm reduction programs are evidencebased best practices that have been continually proven to prevent fatal overdoses, curb the spread of infectious
disease, reduce costly ER visits, and connect people to substance-use treatment options. Proposals to eliminate these programs in Santa Monica would lead to more
preventable deaths and less opportunities for people to get clean – and, as it stands, state law and County Department of Public Health policies supersede our local powers,
thereby rendering this request illegal and unenforceable.

Re: Item 16J, removing all the permanent supportive
housing (PSH) from the proposed affordable housing
project on city-owned surface parking lots off Wilshire would senselessly deny the housing we so desperately
need to get people off our streets. In addition, it will jeopardize the financial viability of the entire project, as competitive state funding for affordable housing strongly prioritizes proposals that include supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals.

I have always trusted that Santa Monica was a
compassionate, humane city that believed in science and reason and treated everyone with dignity and respect.

Please do not give in to the loudest and most hateful voices in our community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and
counterproductive proposals and do what is best for our city.

Thank you,
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 7 Alan Toy
90402
Sent from my iPad
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 8 David Yakobson
From: Stephen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSED

EXTERNAL
Re: Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSED
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am a resident of Santa Monica for close to 50 years.

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 9 affordable housing strongly prioritizes proposals that include supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals.

I have always trusted that Santa Monica was a compassionate, humane city that believed in science and reason and treated everyone with dignity and respect.

Please do not give in to the loudest and most hateful voices in our community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and counterproductive proposals and do what is best for our city.

Stephen Tarzynski, M.D.

Zip code: 90403
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1454 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 10 David Yakobson
From: Melissa Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 2:22 PM
To: Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 10D, 16G, and 16J - OPPOSED

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers:

I strongly oppose items, 10D, 16G and 16J.

These proposals would deny unhoused people basic human needs and block access to life-saving services.

The reasons for homelessness are varied – and very well understood. The three proposals disregard the data.

They devalue the work of nonprofits, social scientists, and local volunteers who have striven to develop longterm solutions from the data. 10D, 16G and 16J fail to acknowledge and address existing conditions that the unhoused are compelled to live with.

If I were a cynical member of the community, I might conclude that 10D, 16G and 16J constitute, in aggregate, a transparent, politically motivated effort to eliminate altogether the unhoused from our streets. I hope that is not the case.

In recent years, my local faith community has joined a westside nonprofit to conduct a homeless memorial service, at which the names of scores of unhoused people who have died in our community in the preceding year are read. Their respective hometowns and survivors, if known, have also been noted. The service presents a moving and tragic reality. It underscores the humanity of those who are forced to live – and too often pass away – in our city from lack of basic needs and services. 10D, 16G and 16J represent an affront to core values, faith-based and secular, that most Americans are raised to uphold. The solutions that
10D, 16G and 16J set forth are short-sighted and inhumane. It’s hard to imagine how these proposed measures accomplish anything but shift the unhoused to surrounding communities.

Solving the problem of homelessness is a long process. Impatience and impulsivity should never guide Council decisions. If anything, our City and community should double down on the good work that has already been done, and build upon the efforts we’re presently undertaking. Please shelve these items and work with residents and local businesses to develop additional solutions that track with our principles.

Melissa Sweeney
Santa Monica 90404
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1455 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 11 David Yakobson
From: Vivian Rothstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 2:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Item 10D, 16G,and 16J: OPPOSED

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am a 40 year resident of Sunset Park who raised my children in this city and served as a member of the City Staff. For 10 years I served as Executive Director of the Ocean Park Community Center (now The People Concern) and learned what it takes to end homelessness in our community -- housing that is affordable and supportive services to maintain stability.

And yet most stunning of all is the sheer cruelty of what is being proposed. To simultaneously deny an unhoused person a blanket and an alternative place to sleep is both mean and absurd.

I have always trusted that Santa Monica was a compassionate, humane city that believed in science and reason and treated everyone with dignity and respect.

Please do not give in to the loudest and most hateful voices in our community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and counterproductive proposals and do what is best for our city.

Sincerely, Vivian Rothstein
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1456 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 12 David Yakobson
From: Laila Taslimi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 12:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Council Agenda items 10D, 16G, and 16J OPPOSED

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Items 10D, 16G, and 16J, which would deny blankets to those sleeping on our streets, deny proven harm reduction and drug treatment strategies to those struggling to get clean, and deny housing opportunities to those ready to come inside.All three of these proposals run counter to every evidence-based best practice for solving homelessness and will without a doubt make our current crisis worse. And yet most stunning of all is the sheer cruelty of what is being proposed. To simultaneously deny an unhoused person a blanket and an alternative place to sleep is both mean and absurd.Re: Item 10D, Santa Monica already has an anti-camping ordinance, as well as laws against sitting, lying, and sleeping in doorways, sidewalks, parks, and countless other places. Making it illegal for unhoused people to use a blanket or pillow will not make them disappear. It will simply expose desperate people with nowhere to go to even more inhumane conditions, further jeopardizing their health and safety and quite possibly their lives, as more unhoused people die from cold weather in Los Angeles each year than in New York City.Re: Item 16G, harm reduction programs are evidence-based best practices that have been continually proven to prevent fatal overdoses, curb the spread of infectious disease, reduce costly ER visits, and connect people to substance-use treatment options. Proposals to eliminate these programs in Santa Monica would lead to more preventable deaths and less opportunities for people to get clean – and, as it stands, state law and County Department of Public Health policies supersede our local powers, thereby rendering this request illegal and unenforceable.Re: Item 16J, removing all the permanent supportive housing (PSH) from the proposed affordable housing project on city-owned surface parking lots off Wilshire would senselessly deny the housing we so desperately need to get people off our streets. In addition, it will jeopardize the financial viability of the entire project, as competitive state funding for affordable housing strongly prioritizes proposals that include supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals.I have always trusted that Santa Monica was a compassionate, humane city that believed in science and reason and treated everyone with dignity and respect.

Please do not give in to the loudest and most hateful voices in our community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and counterproductive proposals and do what is best for our city.

Sincerely,
Laila Taslimi
resident of 90402
from 긕긖긗긘긙긔긚
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1457 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Kathleen Sheldon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Council items on homeless issues in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I have lived in Santa Monica since 1975, and have seen many attempts to deal with the tragedy of homelessness. The three items currently being raised are not solutions, but will add to the problem. We cannot treat people like this, but we do need some serious responses to make our city better for everyone who lives here.

Re: Item 16J, removing all the permanent supportive housing (PSH) from the proposed affordable housing project on cityowned surface parking lots off Wilshire would senselessly deny the housing we so desperately need to get people off our streets. In addition, it will jeopardize the financial viability of the entire project, as competitive state funding for affordable housing strongly prioritizes proposals that include supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals.

Instead, withdraw these cruel and counterproductive proposals and do what is best for our city.

Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1458 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Patricia Meyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Fwd: IMPORTANT: Earlier emails to city council not sending due to Action Network error, please see details here for resending

EXTERNAL
Subject: Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSED
Dear Santa Monica City Council,I am writing to express my strong opposition to Items 10D, 16G, and 16J, which would deny blankets to those sleeping on our streets, deny proven harm reduction and drug treatment strategies to those struggling to get clean, and deny housing opportunities to those ready to come inside.All three of these proposals run counter to every evidence-based best practice for solving homelessness and will without a doubt make our current crisis worse. And yet most stunning of all is the sheer cruelty of what is being proposed. To simultaneously deny an unhoused person a blanket and an alternative place to sleep is both mean and absurd.Re: Item 10D, Santa Monica already has an anti-camping ordinance, as well as laws against sitting, lying, and sleeping in doorways, sidewalks, parks, and countless other places. Making it illegal for unhoused people to use a blanket or pillow will not make them disappear. It will simply expose desperate people with nowhere to go to even more inhumane conditions, further jeopardizing their health and safety and quite possibly their lives, as more unhoused people die from cold weather in Los Angeles each year than in New York City.Re: Item 16G, harm reduction programs are evidence-based best practices that have been continually proven to prevent fatal overdoses, curb the spread of infectious disease, reduce costly ER visits, and connect people to substance-use treatment options. Proposals to eliminate these programs in Santa Monica would lead to more preventable deaths and less opportunities for people to get clean – and, as it stands, state law and County Department of Public Health policies supersede our local powers, thereby rendering this request illegal and unenforceable.Re: Item 16J, removing all the permanent supportive housing (PSH) from the proposed affordable housing project on city-owned Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 2 surface parking lots off Wilshire would senselessly deny the housing we so desperately need to get people off our streets. In addition, it will jeopardize the financial viability of the entire project, as competitive state funding for affordable housing strongly prioritizes proposals that include supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals.I have always trusted that Santa Monica was a compassionate, humane city that believed in science and reason and treated everyone with dignity and respect. Please do not give in to the loudest and most hateful voices in our community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and counterproductive proposals and do what is best for our city.

Sincerely,
Patricia K. Meyer
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Zack <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSED

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,I am writing to express my strong opposition to Items 10D, 16G, and 16J, which would deny blankets to those sleeping on our streets, deny proven harm reduction and drug treatment strategies to those struggling to get clean, and deny housing opportunities to those ready to come inside.All three of these proposals run counter to every evidence-based best practice for solving homelessness and will without a doubt make our current crisis worse. And yet most stunning of all is the sheer cruelty of what is being proposed. To simultaneously deny an unhoused person a blanket and an alternative place to sleep is both mean and absurd.Re: Item 10D, Santa Monica already has an anti-camping ordinance, as well as laws against sitting, lying, and sleeping in doorways, sidewalks, parks, and countless other places. Making it illegal for unhoused people to use a blanket or pillow will not make them disappear. It will simply expose desperate people with nowhere to go to even more inhumane conditions, further jeopardizing their health and safety and quite possibly their lives, as more unhoused people die from cold weather in Los Angeles each year than in New York City.Re: Item 16G, harm reduction programs are evidence-based best practices that have been continually proven to prevent fatal overdoses, curb the spread of infectious disease, reduce costly ER visits, and connect people to substance-use treatment options. Proposals to eliminate these programs in Santa Monica would lead to more preventable deaths and less opportunities for people to get clean – and, as it stands, state law and County Department of Public Health policies supersede our local powers, thereby rendering this request illegal and unenforceable.Re: Item 16J, removing all the permanent supportive housing (PSH) from the proposed affordable housing project on city-owned surface parking lots off Wilshire would senselessly deny the housing we so desperately need to get people off our streets. In addition, it will jeopardize the financial viability of the entire project, as competitive state funding for affordable housing strongly prioritizes proposals that include supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals.I have always trusted that Santa Monica was a compassionate, humane city that believed in science and reason and treated everyone with dignity and respect. Please do not give in to the loudest and most hateful voices in our community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and counterproductive proposals and do what is best for our city.

Zachary Coil, LCSW
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Anastasia Foster <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSED

EXTERNAL
I am opposed to these items. Please don't pass them.
--
Anastasia Foster
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1462 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 2 David Yakobson
From: Megan Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Subject: Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSED

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I am a resident of Santa Monica, a mom, and a nonprofit professional. I care deeply about my neighborhood, city, and community. That's why I was particularly alarmed by some of this evening's agenda.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to Items 10D, 16G, and 16J, which would deny blankets to those sleeping on our streets, deny proven harm reduction and drug treatment strategies to those struggling to get clean, and deny housing opportunities to those ready to come inside.All three of these proposals run counter to every evidence-based best practice for solving homelessness and will without a doubt make our current crisis worse. And yet most stunning of all is the sheer cruelty of what is being proposed. To simultaneously deny an unhoused person a blanket and an alternative place to sleep is both mean and absurd.Re: Item 10D, Santa Monica already has an anti-camping ordinance, as well as laws against sitting, lying, and sleeping in doorways, sidewalks, parks, and countless other places. Making it illegal for unhoused people to use a blanket or pillow will not make them disappear. It will simply expose desperate people with nowhere to go to even more inhumane conditions, further jeopardizing their health and safety and quite possibly their lives, as more unhoused people die from cold weather in Los Angeles each year than in New York City.Re: Item 16G, harm reduction programs are evidence-based best practices that have been continually proven to prevent fatal overdoses, curb the spread of infectious disease, reduce costly ER visits, and connect people to substance-use treatment options. Proposals to eliminate these programs in Santa Monica would lead to more preventable deaths and less opportunities for people to get clean – and, as it stands, state law and County Department of Public Health policies supersede our local powers, thereby rendering this request illegal and unenforceable.Re: Item 16J, removing all the permanent supportive housing (PSH) from the proposed affordable housing project on city-owned surface parking lots off Wilshire would senselessly deny the housing we so desperately need to get people off our streets. In addition, it will jeopardize the financial viability of the entire project, as competitive state funding for affordable housing strongly prioritizes proposals that include supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals.I have always trusted that Santa Monica was a compassionate, humane city that believed in science and reason and treated everyone with dignity and respect. Please do not give in to the loudest and most hateful voices in our community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and counterproductive proposals and do what is best for our city.

My best,
Megan Kelly, 90405
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1463 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 3 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: City Council Items 10D, 16G, and 16J:

EXTERNAL
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Dear Santa Monica City Council,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to Items 10D, 16G, and 16J, which would deny blankets to those sleeping on our streets, deny proven harm reduction and drug treatment strategies to those struggling to get clean, and deny housing opportunities to those ready to come inside.All three of these proposals run counter to every evidence-based best practice for solving homelessness and will without a doubt make our current crisis worse. And yet most stunning of all is the sheer cruelty of what is being proposed. To simultaneously deny an unhoused person a blanket and an alternative place to sleep is both mean and absurd.

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1464 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 4 costly ER visits, and connect people to substance-use treatment options. Proposals to eliminate these programs in Santa Monica would lead to more preventable deaths and less opportunities for people to get clean – and, as it stands, state law and County Department of Public Health policies supersede our local powers, thereby rendering this request illegal and unenforceable.

Please do not give in to the loudest and most hateful voices in our community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and counterproductive proposals and do what is best for our city. - Santa Monica Forward
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1465 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 5 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSED
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: Dana Borowka <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:21 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSED

Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 6 I have always trusted that Santa Monica was a compassionate, humane city that believed in science and reason and treated everyone with dignity and respect. Please do not give in to the loudest and most hateful voices in our community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and counterproductive proposals and do what is best for our city.

Dana and Ellen Borowka
90403
Have a great week!
Talk to you soon,
Dana
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:27 AM
To: Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City I am writing to express my strong opposition to Items 10D, 16G, and 16J, which would deny blankets to those sleeping on our streets, deny proven harm reduction and drug treatment strategies to those struggling to get clean, and deny housing opportunities to those ready to come inside.

I have always believed that Santa Monica was a compassionate, humane city that believed in science and reason and treated everyone with dignity and respect. Please do not give in to the loudest and most hateful voices in our community. Instead, withdraw these cruel and counterproductive proposals and do Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 2 what is best for our city.

Thank you.

Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 3 David Yakobson
From: Allon Percus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Items 10D, 16G, and 16J: OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Brock Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City I am writing to express my strong opposition to Items 10D, 16G, and 16J, which would deny blankets to those sleeping on our streets, deny proven harm reduction and drug treatment strategies to those struggling to get clean, and deny housing opportunities to those ready to come inside.

Re: Item 16G, harm reduction programs are evidence-based best practices that have been continually proven to prevent fatal overdoses, curb the spread of infectious disease, reduce costly ER visits, and connect people to substance-use treatment options. Proposals to eliminate these programs in Santa Monica would lead to more preventable deaths and less opportunities for people to get clean – and, as it stands, state law and County Department of Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 4 Public Health policies supersede our local powers, thereby rendering this request illegal and unenforceable.

Thank you.

Allon
California
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Steven Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: Andrew Gomez; Maryanne LaGuardia; John Smith; Ann Bowman; Lori Brown; Greg Morena
Subject: August 27, 2024 Council Meeting - Item 10.D - SUPPORT with comment Attachments: campfire-in-library-park.MOV

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in support of advancing Item 10.D to improve our anti-camping ordinance in Santa Monica.

As a member of the Recreation & Parks Commission, I regularly visit our neighborhood parks and often see large settlements crop up for the day and sometimes overnight. Lacking a tent, I'm afraid some of these settlements do not rise to the definition of "camping" in the ordinance, but any common sense observation would see that these set-ups are quite extensive, encroach public space and frequently discourage other park visitors.

As an example, pictured below is a fairly extensive encampment that remained in place at Ocean Park Library for several days not too long ago. I attach video, as well, to show that at night, the location even featured a campfire.

Thank you again for your consideration of this ordinance update, and I ask that you remain open to further improvements and enforcement in the future.
* * * * * * * * * *
Steven Johnson
Chair, Recreation & Parks Commission
Resident, Sunset Park
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 2 Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I oppose item 10D

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I strongly oppose item 10D. I’m ashamed to see my city treat people experiencing homelessness like they aren’t human beings. We must tackle the root of the issue rather than attack the victims of the problems we are exacerbating by not building enough housing quickly enough.

For anyone who will be voting on this item but didn’t take the time to read the report, here is a paragraph from it:
"The decision does not legally require the City to do anything differently, either in legislation or practices.

There are many legal, resource, and reality considerations. The decision will not eliminate homelessness, but there are some nuanced changes that could be initiated.

Even if sleeping on public property could be completely outlawed, it will not end. Even if it is legally prohibited, resources must be available and there must be the will to cite or arrest, prosecute, then despite zero bail and even if a case makes it to court and the defendant appears, and a jury were to convict, there certainly are not resources nor the will to hold those convicted of low level crimes such as sleeping in public in the County jail. Until there are substantially greater resources available for mental health treatment, substance abuse prevention and treatment, and housing (shelter, transitional, and/or permanent housing), as people necessarily must sleep somewhere, the issue will not be resolved by this Court decision."
Please oppose item 10D, treat all people with dignity, and provide them with resources, which some of you don’t seem interested in doing since some of the 16 items on this agenda do exactly the opposite.

Caro Vilain, 90404
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 2 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: 10D: oppose changes to municipal code

EXTERNAL
Good evening,
Please oppose the changes to the municipal code outlines in option 2. Attempting to treat the symptom of the homeless crisis through heartless action will not yield any benefits.

Either option 1 or 3 should be taken to allow the city to develop a plan to truly address this crisis in an effective, compassionate, and legal way.

Thanks
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 3 David Yakobson
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 10D: Support for Option 1

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and honorable City Council members,
I'm writing in support of Option 1 for Item10D. While I understand the community's frustration around homelessness and the myriad public safety posed by the housing crisis, we already have a robust and enforced anti-camping ordinance (and for anyone who doubts its enforcement, I invite them to take a look at the difference between the Santa Monica and Los Angeles side of Centinela under the 405).

And in that context, I simply do not understand how an additional ban on blankets and bedrolls is going to make a difference re: public safety. Since we're unlikely to have the resources to enforce it against all, it will likely only be enforced against those who are already having other serious problems-and if that's the case, I truly doubt the absence/presence of a blanket/bedroll is going to make the difference as to whether or not PD (or the City) is able to take some enforcement action against any particular individual.

As the City Attorney writes, "Even if sleeping on public property could be completely outlawed, it will not end....current laws do not allow people to be forced to accept shelter, and people can decline to accept shelter." Since that's the case, and thus people will be sleeping outside anyway, why take away people's blankets--frankly, as it gets colder at night, putting them at risk for all sorts of health issues (including possible death)--when it's not going to have an impact on public safety or PD's ability to do their jobs?
I do think our homelessness crisis poses serious public safety risks for both housed and unhoused individuals--but a blanket ban is not the way to ameliorate those issues.

Thank you,
Brian Sweeney
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 4 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 8:55 PM
To: Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 10.D: Against Criminalizing Our Unhoused Neighbors

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a voter, resident, and parent, I oppose the proposed ordinance in Item 10.D. The ordinance proposes is cruel, and it saddens me deeply to see our welcoming City contemplate a both literal and figurative blanket ban.

The ordinance would criminalize people with no other place to go, for merely seeking shelter when they otherwise lack anywhere else safe to sleep. It does nothing to solve homelessness, merely forcibly pushing people from place to place. It wastes our tax dollars while accomplishing very little.

Legal scholars have argued that such ordinances violate basic human rights. The crisis requires far more beds and shelter space than we have available.

I would hate to see the City side with the conservative wing of the Supreme Court here.

Having had unhoused people take shelter in my car ports before, and living myself just next door to a residence housing the formly unhoused, I know that compassion is needed and that our unhoused neighbors simply want a home first and foremost. This proposal is the exact opposite.

Thanks,
Jacob Wasserman
11th and Washington
90403
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 2:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 10 D Camping in Public Places

EXTERNAL
I strongly support expanding this prohibition despite the City Attorney all but promising his office will refuse to prosecute a valid and enforceable law, in defiance of any Council decision on the matter.

Time for a new City Attorney? The answer is almost certainly “yes” because Santa Monica needs a dramatic turnaround in its long-failed stance on homelessness, and passive-aggressive bureaucrats should not be allowed to stand in the way.

Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024
Item 10-D
August 27, 2024

10.D.c
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6575 : Camping Ordinance) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 27, 2024
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 12
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heather Averick, Director, Housing and Human Services Department Subject: Adoption of Resolution and Approval of Release of Request for Proposals for City-Owned Sites Designated for Affordable Housing Development in the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element and Declaration of Sites as "Exempt Surplus Land" in Accordance with the Surplus Land Act
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Declare two City-owned properties located at 1333 4th Street (APNs 4291-011- 909 and 4291-011-910) and 1324 5th Street (APNs 4291-011-900, 4291-011-901, 4291-011-902, 4291-011-903, 4291-011-904, 4291-011-905 and 4291-011-908) as “exempt surplus land” as defined in Government Code 54221(f), adopt a resolution declaring the 4th/5th and Arizona as exempt surplus, authorize the City Manager or his or her designee to take implementing actions necessary to comply with the Surplus Land Act (Government Code sections 54220 et. seq.); and authorize the release of Request for Proposals for ground leasing and development of 4th/5th and Arizona by June 30, 2025.

2. Declare City-owned properties located at Bergamot Station Arts Center located at 2500 Olympic (APNs 4268-013-919 and 4268-014-900) as “exempt surplus land” as defined in Government Code 54221(f), adopt a resolution declaring the Bergamot Station Arts Center as exempt surplus, authorize the City Manager or his or her designee to take implementing actions necessary to comply with the Surplus Land Act (Government Code sections 54220 et. seq.); and authorize the release of Request for Proposals for ground leasing and development of the Bergamot Station Arts Center by June 30, 2027.

3. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15312 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a finding of no possibility of significant effect on the environment pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), and a finding that the development of affordable housing on City-owned property was previously analyzed in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report.

Background

11.A
Packet Pg. 1479
2 of 12
6 th Cycle Housing Element Commitments for City-owned Sites The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) was adopted by the City Council on October 11, 2022 and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 14, 2022. The Housing Element required the City to demonstrate that the City’s zoning could accommodate the City’s assigned Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) of 8,895 units at each income level:

The Housing Element includes Program 2.E “Commit to the Production of Affordable Housing on City-Owned / Publicly-Owned Land”. Program 2.E states the City’s commitment to plan for a minimum of 1,880 affordable housing units on City-owned sites as shown below.

11.A
Packet Pg. 1480
3 of 12
Figure A: List of City-Owned Property Committed for 1,880 Affordable Housing Units (from Figure F-7, Appendix F of the Certified 6th Cycle Housing Element)

11.A
Packet Pg. 1481
4 of 12
Housing developments on City-owned sites identified in the Housing Element must meet the following parameters:
• Reserve at least 50% of the development’s floor area for residential use • Contain at least 20% deed-restricted affordable units • Approved through a ministerial process that does not require public hearings Achieving the number of affordable housing units for the 6th Cycle RHNA will be challenging, especially given limited public funding and high land costs in the City.

Therefore, the City Council has committed to prioritizing such land for 100% affordable housing in the Housing Element.

The five City-owned sites designated for affordable housing in the Housing Element are:

Public Parking lots 7, 8, and 12 (Wilshire sites); former Parking Structure 3 (former PS3), 4th & Arizona (1333 4th Street and 1324 5th Street), Bergamot Station Arts Center (2500 Olympic), and Main Street parking lots.

How Affordable Housing is Produced

11.A
Packet Pg. 1482
5 of 12
Affordable Housing Production Program
Affordable housing in Santa Monica is produced through both private and public funding. The City has an inclusionary housing program called the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) that requires market-rate housing developments to set aside a percentage of units to be deed-restricted for affordable housing split evenly between Very Low, Low and Moderate Income levels. The AHPP was enacted in 1998 and since that time, approximately 35% of all multifamily development has been affordable. Currently, market-rate housing developments are required to provide 15% of a units as affordable. Smaller developments are allowed to pay an in-lieu fee. 100% Affordable Housing Development
Production of housing developments with 100% of the units deed restricted as affordable is only feasible if deeply subsidized by federal, state, and local funding programs, so that the affordable rents charged to lower income households cover the property operating costs and possibly a small, amortized bank loan to offset some of the development cost not subsidized with public or tax credit investor funds. A typical affordable housing development must combine several government funding programs to achieve financial feasibility to cover property acquisition and development cost. Most funding programs available are only open for applications annually, or for some, biannually.

The various financing programs have unique goals, priorities, requirements, and funding periods which must be successfully navigated to bring a development to fruition.

Competition for limited funding is strong and requires achieving threshold milestones of project readiness - such as site control, environmental review, and land use entitlements - prior to entering the competitive funding cycle. Therefore, affordable housing developers must carefully choreograph project readiness and State funding cycles to minimize the length it takes to develop. Proposed housing types and target populations should address local needs but must also fit into one of the particular housing category types required by the funding program, such as family, senior, or

11.A
Packet Pg. 1483
6 of 12
persons experiencing homelessness. Designing an affordable housing development often involves tradeoffs, while remaining focused on meeting the needs of lower-income households.

Exempt Surplus and Surplus Land
City Council may designate a property as one of the two “surplus” designations:

1. “Exempt Surplus” designation is where 100% of the residential units are for lowor moderate-income households with a minimum of 75% of the residential units restricted to lower-income households for affordable housing. This includes mixed-use developments with ancillary commercial ground floor uses. This designation allows the City to avoid the prescribed SLA notice and 90-day negotiation process with each developer that responds.

2. “Surplus” designation is when at least 25% of the total residential units are set at affordable housing, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. This designation would require the City to follow the prescribed SLA notice and 90-day negotiation process.

In consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, staff reviewed the remaining three Cityowned sites and determined that two sites – 4 th/5th Arizona and the Bergamot Arts
Center – would be eligible for “exempt surplus” under the Surplus Land Act given the number of affordable housing residences committed in the Housing Element.

City funding sources and availability
The City has various sources of revenues, such as development impact fees, affordable housing loan repayments, and transaction and use tax, which pay into the City’s Housing Trust Funds to subsidize affordable housing development. The main source of housing trust fund revenue for the past several years, approximately $8 million annually,

11.A
Packet Pg. 1484
7 of 12
comes from the increased transaction and use tax adopted by Santa Monica voters in November 2016, known as Measure GSH. A significant portion of the revenue has been and is anticipated to be temporarily utilized to address the City’s liabilities, reducing the overall availability of that revenue source. Santa Monica voters also adopted Measure GS in November 2022, which increases the real estate transfer tax, with the proceeds designated for homeless prevention, rental assistance, and affordable housing production. The new revenue source could become a significant source of revenue for affordable housing development. However, only one full year of implementation and revenue collection has elapsed during the 2023-2024 period, so a reliable estimate of future revenue has not yet been established.

Discussion
Release of Request for Proposal in 2025 for 4th/5th and Arizona Ave Staff recommends moving forward with 4/5th and Arizona Avenue (4th/5th/AZ) for the next release of the RFP and seeks Council approval to release a RFP for the 4th/5th/AZ site per the City’s commitment in Housing Element Program 2.E . The purpose of the RFP process for 4th/5th/AZ is to evaluate and select a proposed development and development team that is qualified to undertake the development of these City-owned sites.

Based on highest and best use analysis of this location, along with the amount of affordable housing units required for this location under the Housing Element, Staff seeks approval for the release of the RFP to include the following:

1. a minimum of 362 affordable residences, with Permanent Supportive Housing permissible

2. flexible open space for community benefit

3. option to include revenue generating source, whether market rate apartments, hotel, or other commercial source of revenue
acknowledgement of the existing commercial leases with Bank of America and Chase Bank which will be in effect through 2026

11.A
Packet Pg. 1485
8 of 12
The RFP will ask developers to propose financially feasible development options and allow flexibility for developers who have the expertise in affordable housing financing and development design to propose the best uses for this site. Release of the RFP will occur by June 30, 2025.

The land for the 4th/5th/AZ site is approximately three times the size of the two Cityowned sites already in process. California State affordable financing programs are generally not geared toward affordable housing developments of this scale (362 affordable residences). Therefore, financially feasible development on the site may necessitate two or three separate developments, which will increase the overall complexity and staff work associated with bringing this site to fruition.

Remaining City-Owned Sites
The Bergamot Station Arts Center and Main Street Parking Lots are the other two locations designated for affordable housing in the Housing Element. Given the number of units required at both of these locations, as well as the complexity of each location (tenants and replacement parking for Main street businesses), staff recommends proceeding with the release of the RFP for the 4
th/5th/AZ site next. Staff are currently
working on the following for the two remaining City-Owned sites to ensure they are ready for an RFP within the allotted timeframe:

1. Meeting with affordable housing developers who have built affordable artist housing across Southern California, including the Westside of Los Angeles, as we plan for Bergamot Arts Station site

2. Coordination with Cultural Affairs Division regarding affordable artist housing

3. Main Street parking lots and the need for replacement parking is included in the Department of Transportation’s parking study

4. Conducting an environmental study of Main Street sites to determine where the water table is and what is feasible for underground parking Recommendation to Proceed with one RFP at a Time

11.A
Packet Pg. 1486
9 of 12
Due to staff bandwidth and the complexity of the remaining City-owned sites, as well as the existing City-owned sites underway, staff recommend proceeding with the release of RFPs based on the schedule outlined in the Housing Element. If the RFPs are released every two years as committed in the Housing Element, no additional staff are needed.

Should City Council desire and direct Staff to proceed with the release of an RFP for two city-owned sites concurrently, it will require two additional Senior Development Analysts prior to the release of the RFPs one in the Housing Division and one in the Economic Development Division - to assist with lease negotiations, drafting and executing master ground leases, overseeing tenant retention efforts and transitioning site operations involving City commercial tenants. The Economic Development Division would also require funds to retain a commercial broker to assist with tenant relocation/retention efforts at the Bergamot site.

Beyond city staffing and consulting resources, there are additional concerns in successfully financing more than one affordable housing development if the City moved forward with two or more city-owned sites simultaneously. There are very limited resources to leverage outside funding from the State of California budget and LowIncome Housing Tax Credits, of which State funding for affordable housing was significantly reduced in the State budget.

Having competing affordable housing developments may limit the leveraging of resources while also increasing the timeline for the start of construction if financing is not achieved. Furthermore, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits are increasingly competitive and limited, which funds typically 50% of an affordable housing development. Lastly, funding from the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC or Cap & Trade) program are increasingly becoming a key role in financing larger affordable housing which requires transportation/transit component that significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions. While the AHSC program brings additional transportation funding to the City if the development is successful in its application, more than one development application in a round may be limited in the

11.A
Packet Pg. 1487
10 of 12
ability to identify a qualifying transportation project for each affordable housing development.

Environmental Review
The actions to adopt a framework for the development of affordable housing on Cityowned sites and declaration of sites as surplus lands are categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15312 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as the action involves the first step in the sale of surplus government property that is not located in an area of statewide, regional, or areawide concern identified in Section 15206(b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, the actions are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” No development is being authorized at this time. Furthermore, the issuance of RFPs for development of affordable housing on these City-owned sites was analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [SCH No. 20212269242021] that was certified by Council on October 12, 2021, with an Addendum to the EIR approved on October 11, 2022. Development of affordable housing on City-owned properties implements a portion of that 6th Cycle Housing Element, and is consistent with the Housing Element EIR. Therefore, no further CEQA review is necessary.

Next Steps
Consistent with the goals established in the Emergency Order on Homelessness and the Housing Element, the City will issue an RFP for the City-owned site located at 4 th/5th/AZ by June 30, 2025.

After evaluating proposals, staff will return to City Council for recommendation and selection of a development team, terms for disposition of City land, and a Housing Trust Fund loan if required under the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines.

11.A
Packet Pg. 1488
11 of 12
Past Council Actions
Date Council Action
April 9, 2019 Authorize issuance of a request for
proposals for the development of
affordable housing on City-owned
property at 1318 Fourth Street, and
authorize staff to continue to explore
similar opportunities on other City-owned
properties.

March 23, 2021 Resolution declaring the City-owned
property at 1333 4th St as surplus land
and the City-owned property at 1318 4th
St. as exempt surplus land.

January 11, 2022 Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement with EAH, Inc. for a mixeduse, affordable housing development on the city-owned site located at 1318-20
Fourth Street.

October 11, 2022 Adoption of 6th Cycle Housing Element
March 14, 2023 Resolution declaring the City-owned
properties at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-
1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1146
Sixteenth Street as exempt surplus land.

March 21, 2023 Ordinance implementing Housing
Element Phase 1 Programs.

March 19, 2024 Award RFP #365 to Hollywood
Community Housing Corporation (HCHC)
for the future development of affordable
housing on City-owned property at 1217
Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth
Street and 1146 Sixteenth Street; and
authorize the City Manager to negotiate
and execute an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement with HCHC.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary because of the recommended action. Staff estimates that the potential parking revenue loss due to the

11.A
Packet Pg. 1489
12 of 12
closure of Parking Lot 27 would be an average of $361,000 annually from the General Fund. Staff will continue to analyze the potential loss of revenues and will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Prepared By: Natalie Verlinich, Housing Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A - Fact Sheets on City-Owned Sites Identified in the Housing Element
B. Attachment B - Resolution
C. Written Comments

11.A
Packet Pg. 1490
Attachment A
Fact Sheets on Remaining City-Owned Sites Identified in the Housing Element

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: Attachment A - Fact Sheets on City-Owned Sites Identified in the Housing Element [Revision 1] (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH 4th/5th/ARIZONA FACT SHEET
1301 – 1333 4th Street and 1302 - 1334 5th Street
Site: 112,000 square feet (2.5 acres)
Ownership: City owns the properties at 1302 - 1334 5th Street, purchased for $36 million in 2007 and 2009 with Redevelopment Agency funds. City purchased 1301 – 1333 4th Street for $42.5 million in 2010 with Redevelopment Agency funds and is still paying off this purchase through 2042 (see Debt Service notes below).

Tenancy:

Tenant Address Annual Rents Lease Term
Bank of America 1301 Fourth Street $1.5 million February 28, 2026 Chase Bank 1333 Fourth Street $1.1 million April 30, 2028 EvGo Electric Charging Station Parking Lot 27 $31,000 July 31, 2027 Annual Rental Revenues: $2,500,000 appx
Debt Service: Years 2013 – 2029: $3.3 million per year
Years 2030 – 2034: $3.4 million per year
Years 2035 – 2039: $3.5 million per year
Years 2040 – 2042: $3.6 million per year
*City continues to collect tax increment in these amounts to cover debt service.

Zoning And FAR:

Address/Existing Uses Zoning FAR Land Area
(sf)
Proposed Density Unit Capacity
1301-1333 4th St
(BofA, Chase Bank)
BC – Bayside Commercial 4.0 (100% Affordable Housing)

3.5 (Mixed Income Housing)
52,489 150 units/acre 181
1324 5th St
(Parking Lot 27)
NV – Neighborhood Village 4.5 (100% Affordable Housing)

4.0 (Mixed Income Housing)
52,470 150/units/acre 181

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: Attachment A - Fact Sheets on City-Owned Sites Identified in the Housing Element [Revision 1] (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH Housing Element Commitment of Affordable Units at this
Site:
362 affordable housing units
Considerations and/or Constraints: 1) Existing bank tenant (Chase) has requested a lease extension for a minimum of 2 years (approved by
Council in July 2024) and has expressed desire to a
tenant in the future development. Banks typically
need 2-yr “lead time” to relocate.
2) Consider a viable, revenue-generating use.
3) Community desire to retain some flexible outdoor
space on site for future community activations.

Existing Parking Spaces 93

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: Attachment A - Fact Sheets on City-Owned Sites Identified in the Housing Element [Revision 1] (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH

BERGAMOT STATION ARTS CENTER FACT SHEET
2525 Michigan Avenue
Site: 224,000 square feet (5.6 acres)
Ownership: City purchased the site for $17.3 million in 1989 with Big Blue Bus Rail Reserve funds.

Zoning: Bergamot Area Plan– Conservation Arts Center (CAC) FAR: 3.0 (100% Affordable Housing)

2.5 (Mixed Income Housing)
Housing Element Commitment of
Affordable Units at this Site:
707 affordable housing units (150 units/acre)
Tenants: Approximately 30 small businesses: art galleries, non-profit theatre company, comedy club and restaurant within five buildings (approximately 62,000 SF of building space).

Lease Term: One-year leases, renewed annually (Jan 1
st). Staff will be seeking Council
approval to issue up to 3 year leases for tenants.

Annual Gross Rental Revenues: $1,600,000 appx
Annual Repayment to Rail Reserve
Fund (Big Blue Bus):
$660,000 appx
Annual Operating + CapEx Expenses: OPEX approximately $950,000 annually CAPEX $300,000- $500,000/yr (subject to available funds and capital improvements required)
Considerations and/or Constraints: 1) Creating a viable plan for relocation and relocating existing tenants 2) Artist housing as part of the affordable units
3) Evaluate revenue impacts to BBB

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: Attachment A - Fact Sheets on City-Owned Sites Identified in the Housing Element [Revision 1] (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH

MAIN STREET PARKING LOTS FACT SHEET
Public Parking Lots 9, 10, 11
Site: 167,388 square feet (3.84 acres)
Ownership: City-owned surface parking lots
Zoning: R3-A, R4-A
Maximum Allowable Density: R3: 35 units/acre (no FAR)
R4: 48 units/acre (no FAR)
Housing Element Commitment of
Affordable Units at this Site:
577 affordable housing units (150 units/acre)
*minimum of 5 stories needed to achieve this # of units Existing Parking Spaces 339
Tenants: • Victorian leases the parking lot behind the business Annual Revenues: • Average annual parking revenue of approximately $800,000 • Adjacent Victorian/Heritage Square businesses generates approximately $450,000 in annual lease revenue
Considerations and/or Constraints: • Located in Coastal Zone • Public parking lots support Main Street businesses and coastal access – how much of parking will be replaced
• May require renegotiation of existing lease with City tenant(s) on adjoining properties (e.g. The Victorian), which expires in 2028 (or 2033 if final 5th option is approved by both parties)
• Main Street Farmer’s Market is located on one of the surface lots • Sites are long and relatively narrow
• Needs an environmental feasibility analysis of the sites

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: Attachment A - Fact Sheets on City-Owned Sites Identified in the Housing Element [Revision 1] (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH

Page 1 ends

City Council Meeting: August 27, 2024 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER ___ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA,

CALIFORNIA, DECLARING, PURSUANT TO THE SURPLUS LAND ACT, CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY AND LOCATED AT 1333 4TH STREET, 1324 5TH STREET, 1333, 4TH STREET, 1324 5TH STREET, AND 2500 OLYMPIC

BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA, AS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND; FINDING THAT SUCH DECLARATION IS EXEMPT FROM

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the California Surplus Land Act (Government Code 54220 et seq.) (SLA) governs the sale of surplus lands and requires local agencies to prioritize opportunities for certain uses including affordable housing development for any land the entity may sell or lease; and
WHEREAS, surplus land may be declared either “surplus” or “exempt surplus” by the legislative body of the local agency as supported by written findings; and WHEREAS, the disposition of exempt surplus land does not have to follow the procedural requirements of the Surplus Land Act, and includes surplus land that is offered for open, competitive bid for 100% affordable housing development; and WHEREAS, the SLA and Housing Element Law require local agencies to report on the list of surplus lands in the General Plan Annual Progress Report, which is due April 1 of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica owns those certain parcels at 1333 4th Street (APNs: 4291-011-909 and 4291-011-903), 1324 5th Street (APNs: 4291-011-900, 4291- 011-902, 4291-011-903, 4291-011-904, 4291-011-905, and 4291-011-908), and 2500 Olympic Boulevard (APNs: 4268-013-919 and 4268-014-900), in the City of Santa Monica, California (collectively, “the Properties”); and
WHEREAS, the Properties qualify as “exempt surplus land” within the meaning of the Surplus Land Act because the City has plans to develop these properties for qualifying affordable housing projects; and

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: Attachment B - Resolution (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework))

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, the development of the Properties for affordable housing is consistent with the City’s adopted and certified 2021-2029 Housing Element, which identifies these sites as suitable to accommodate a portion of the City’s share of regional housing need for lower income households pursuant to State law; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to issue a Request for Proposals for developers to develop affordable housing on the Properties; and
WHEREAS, the accompanying staff report provides supporting information upon which the declaration and findings set forth in this Resolution are based; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby declares that the Properties are surplus lands and not necessary for the City’s use.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby declares that the Properties constitute exempt surplus land as defined under the Surplus Lands Act (“SLA”) because the Properties will be offered for open, competitive bid for 100% affordable housing development.

SECTION 4. This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”). The designation of the Properties as exempt surplus does not have the potential for creating a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to. The City Council hereby adopts a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15312 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a finding of no possibility of significant effect on the environment pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), and a finding that the development of affordable housing on City-owned property was previously analyzed in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: Attachment B - Resolution (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework))

Page 3 ends

Impact Report.

SECTION 5. The City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to submit the report of declared surplus land and exempt surplus land as part of the Annual Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conformance with state law and file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062.

SECTION 6. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to do all things which are deemed necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution, and any such actions previously taken are hereby ratified and confirmed.

Such actions include negotiating in good faith in accordance with the requirements of the SLA with any of the authorized entities that submit a written notice of interest to purchase or lease the property in compliance with the SLA.

SECTION 7. 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:
__________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: Attachment B - Resolution (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Mike Salazar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:55 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 11A
Attachments: City Council 240827 item 11-A_salazar-opposed.pdf

EXTERNAL
Attached is my letter to our City Council in opposition to staff recommendation in Item 11A. Please distribute to Council, City Manager, Planning staff and all relevant city department heads, as well as for public input.

MIke Salazar, Architect
--
Mike Salazar
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or is not the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or reply by e-mail and promptly delete the message. Thank you.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) Mike Salazar, Architect

Page 1 of 1 ends

August 27, 2024
TO: Santa Monica City Council
FROM: Mike Salazar, Architect and Ocean Park/Santa Monica Resident RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
I urge our City Council to refuse to declare both 4th/5th Arizona and bergamot Station sites as “surplus” land or exempt from the Surplus Land Act.

Declaring both 4th/5th Arizona and Bergamot Station as “surplus” takes valuable land and resources away from residents. These sites are NOT surplus in the intended sense of the ACT nor what the residents want. Why would this City Council continue to give away our land, especially after the overwhelmingly negative reaction to declaring our landmark Civic Auditorium as surplus land. What a waste of time and city resources that process was, and it should be heeded as a learning moment to NOT make surplus land decisions that the Council knows is not supported and will be opposed by most residents. Our publicly owned land should never be given away without substantial public input.

Claiming to be able to provide 1,100 affordable housing units on these two parcels is just folly.

Especially when staff has not done their homework of analyzing the current status of housing projects city-wide, not inventorying other sites that legitimately are suitable in size and location to enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built within the fabric of the city.

You all know the histories of these two sites, and the passion of residents to have the maximum input on their future buildouts. By assigning these two sites as surplus land, you will lose the opportunity to retain public open spaces that are sorely needed, put at risk one of the best art communities of southern California, and certainly again bring resistance by residents beyond what was experienced at the Civic Center. Do you really want to ignore this likelihood and barrel full speed ahead without your ducks in a row again?
I certainly hope not. I urge this City Council to not make this mistaken Surplus Land assignment again and put staff back to work to bring you options that the entire community can evaluate and ultimately support. Don’t tie the residents’ hands and don’t short-circuit public input.

Sincerely,
Mike Salazar, Architect
Santa Monica/Ocean Park.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 2 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:53 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
We are living in an overdeveloped city that is hardly recognizable as a beach town anymore. Soon, our city will look like any other metropolis with the unnecessary development that is being built to mostly satisfy investors and those who have a stake in the overdevelopment of our city. We need green spaces, we need art, and we need better oversight and accountability of the projects already underway before rubber stamping more. Throwing money at problems doesn’t always solve them!
I urge the Council to refuse to declare the land at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona sites “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Sad to see our city sacrificed to the contractor gods!
Sincerely,
Mindi Shank
Resident, Taxpayer, and Parent to SMMUSD children
2525 29th Street
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 3 David Yakobson
From: Frozan Habib <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:42 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern:

I have been a Santa Monica resident for 25+ years and have been extremely disappointed as of late in regards to the boom of private developers capitalizing on our city by building projects us residents are vehemently opposed to. With that said, I urge the City Council not to to declare either of the sites named in agenda item 11-A as surplus or exempt from the SLA. I request that these sites remain as publicly owned lands and would like a report of all the affordable housing projects and their statuses.

Please keep in mind that elections are coming up and so far many residents such as myself are very disappointed in the decisions our current City Council has been making of late.

Sincerely,
Frozan Habib (she/hers)
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 4 David Yakobson
From: Bea Nemlaha <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:41 AM
To: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27/24 Agenda Item 11-A: Privatizing Our Public Land at 4th/5th & Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica is losing everything special about it which has made its reputation and drawn visitors from both far and wide. It is fast becoming a boring, uninteresting City with little to recommend it except the Bergamot Arts and Cultural Center, its location on the beach, and the Pier.

Likely privatizing Bergamot and the 4th/5th & Arizona recreational corner for commercial and inevitably primarily market rate housing is morally wrong and will not bring back a vibrant City people wish to live in or visit.

Council, please refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA and pursue other sites more likely to enable the 100% affordable housing projects we need far more than additional market rate housing.

Thank you,
Bea Nemlaha

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 5 David Yakobson
From: Nazaneen Habib <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:36 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern:

I am a native and life-long resident of Santa Monica and have been extremely disappointed as of late in regards to the boom of private developers capitalizing on our city by building projects us residents are vehemently opposed to. With that said, I urge the City Council not to to declare either of the sites named in agenda item 11-A as surplus or exempt from the SLA. I request that these sites remain as publicly owned lands and would like a report of all the affordable housing projects and their statuses. Please keep in mind that elections are coming up and so far many residents such as myself are very disappointed in the decisions our current City Council has been making of late.

Sincerely,
Nazaneen Habib (she/hers)
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 6 David Yakobson
From: FRANK SWANSON <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Retain public land

EXTERNAL
Do not p rivitise the 4-5th st properties with another takeover of immense buildings as happens all too often. Retain cultural space please.Emily [email protected]. OP owner rivitise
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 7 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Item 11 -A City Council August 27,2024
From: Mario Fonda-Bonardi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:13 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 11 -A City Council August 27,2024

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Persons,
This meeting you are considering the final use of the large City-owned property at 5th and Arizona. Given the incredible high rise growth occurring in our down town area from the 8 story Vons project to the new 24 story project at 601 Colorado, the need for park space is growing exponentially. Please do not do anything that precludes this parcel from eventually becoming a park: that is fullfilling its perfectly placed natural role as our Central Park.

Thanks, Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 8 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Council bill 11A
From: Larry heliker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:45 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Council bill 11A

EXTERNAL
As a lover of the Bergamont art area, I urge you to reject the proposal that would allow private investment and remove the land from public use.

Larry Heliker
917 Euclid St #6
90403
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 9 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
City Council and City Manager -
I urge the City Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the Surplus Land Act, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide (applications, permits, and construction in each income category, as compared to the RHNA targets), and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO DECLARE LAND SURPLUS TO INVESTIGATE USES

AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT THAT THIS HAPPEN NOW, prior investigating all other options. This is the same sham that was used to declare the Civic Auditorium surplus ("just" to speak with parties about interest).

I support the letter below from the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) and incorporate it herein by reference.

Thanks,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident

****************************************************************************

August 26, 2024

TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 10 Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

When, inevitably, that 100% affordable housing goal is deemed unfeasible, Council will then be able to entertain other proposals, such as requiring only 25% affordable housing, together with market rate housing and commercial revenue-generating uses, like hotels. That’s possible under another exemption of the Surplus Land Act, not specifically cited in the staff report just as the specific 100% affordable housing exemption wasn’t specified either.

Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built. ###
Nikki Kolhoff
[email protected]
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 11 David Yakobson
From: karen wood <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:25 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Please do not relinquish our beloved Bergamot Arts Center/ 4th and AZ area to developers. This is a much needed property for public land. We do not wish to permit developers to build on this land as the present use is exactly what we need. It's beneficial to our community to have this land used for artistic purposes and to have a publicly owned cultural arts center.

Stating this land will be used for 1100 affordable units is unrealistic so it seems obvious to us that this is a ploy to just take this land away from us. When, inevitably, that 100% affordable housing goal is deemed unfeasible, we're sure this will then be sold to developers with 10-25% affordable housing. You have already destroyed the Ocean Park community with your Gelsons fiasco of 581 units spread over 12 six story buildings all on a small parcel on a two lane street!! Why must you destroy yet another area of our beautiful city. It's beginning to feel like the core and essence of Santa Monica has been stripped and whoever is intent on commercializing and selling us off to those with money are now going to change Santa Monica forever. I used to be a proud citizen of our community but am mortified at the changes being made.

I urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built. Please do your job of protecting the integrity of our community.

Karen Wood

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 12 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:24 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Do Not Privatize our Public Land

EXTERNAL

Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my firm and unwavering opposition to the privatization of our public land for private development. The rapid and unchecked pace of construction in our city is leading to severe and irreversible consequences. Overpopulation, increased traffic, mounting waste, and rising pollution levels are suffocating our community.

This reckless expansion needs to stop.

Santa Monica is a unique and cherished place, and the very qualities that make it a world-class destination are being eroded by short-sighted planning and overdevelopment. The idea that Los Angeles residents should have an inherent right to move to Santa Monica, contingent on sufficient housing, is misguided. We are already struggling with a skyrocketing cost of living, and further development will only exacerbate this issue.

I urge you to prioritize the long-term well-being of our city and its residents over the short-term gains of private developers. Protect our public land, preserve the beauty of Santa Monica, and halt this relentless push towards overdevelopment.

Respectfully,

Gary Landi
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 13 David Yakobson
From: Justin Rauzon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Council Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Dear city officials,
I write in opposition to the proposed plan to convert public land at 4th/5th and Arizona and the Bergamot Arts Center. Since its 19th-century transformation from California cattle ranch to suburban city, Santa Monica has become a tourist destination, an ideal place for a family home, and a venue to make a lot of money “improving” property.

These interests do not necessarily conflict, but there is plenty of opportunity for one to undermine the others. Privatizing public land — which is the gist of item 11-A — is a prime example.

Our city has been “built out” for at least half of its modern history, and there is no practical way to purchase private land for public use. This makes the stewardship of the City’s portfolio of property even more important, and cries out for transparent and open decision processes.

In my opinion, we aren’t guaranteed that with this item. Please vote “no” on it.

I support the building up of the city, particularly in the downtown area. This is the natural progression of a robust and thriving city. Manhattan once had single-family homes and small buildings. I think the development of mixed-use, multi-level buildings adding housing units downtown is wonderful. Let's facilitate the building of more housing units. But let's do it in a thoughtful manner without sacrificing public spaces. They are as critical to the successful progression of a city as anything else.

Justin Rauzon
414 Euclid Street
562-533-4337
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 14 David Yakobson
From: Josh Trifunovic <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:05 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council

FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC)

RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 15 And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings!

Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Josh Trifunovic
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 16 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:00 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council meeting 8/27/2024 Agenda item 11-A

EXTERNAL
I am a long time Santa Monica resident. I strongly oppose the plan to convert Bergamont Station and the 4th and Arizona parcel to surplus land.

These properties belong to us, the people of Santa Monica. They should be used for public purposes only. Do not open the door for private developers to use our land for their private profit.

Harris Gabel
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Larry heliker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Council bill 11A/ copy of letter sent to city Council

EXTERNAL
From: Larry heliker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:45 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Council bill 11A
As a lover of the Bergamont art area, I urge you to reject the proposal that would allow private investment and remove the land from public use.

Larry Heliker
917 Euclid St #6
90403
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 2 David Yakobson
From: Paula Goldman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:28 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
Forgive this group email; I realize time is short.

Please do NOT declare Bergamot Station and the land at 5th and Arizona to be “ surplus land”.

Using our precious, minimal public property to satisfy the State housing mandate is foolish and uncreative.

The result will be a bedroom town of wall-to-wall housing, with few of the amenities that make people want to engage with local services.

I still have trouble understanding how our City allowed the Santa Monica Museum of Art to leave Bergamot; it was (and still is, though hugely inconvenient for Santa Monica residents) a world-class asset.

Using these lands in a way that would not serve the entire public is lazy.

Once they’re gone, they’re gone.

Thank you,
Paula Goldman
2821 Washington Avenue
Paula Goldman
PaulaGoldman.com
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 3 David Yakobson
From: Phil Abrams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:29 AM
To: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings!
Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Best,
Phil
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 4 IMDB
The Audition Physician
- coaching services -
(310) 350-0155
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 5 David Yakobson
From: phillis dudick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 11 August 27/2024 Council Agenda

EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor Brock and City Councilmembers:

As a Santa Monica resident, lover of the arts and open spaces, I strongly oppose the notion of designating public land at 4th & 5h/Arizona, and at Bergamot Center, as surplus land at this time.

May we reflect, may we be open to exploring potential alternatives; may we think out of the box before making an irreversible decision affecting residents, and our City, for generations to come.

Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter.

Most sincerely,
Phillis Dudick
San Vicente Resident
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 6 David Yakobson
From: Joyce Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:11 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Agenda item 11A

EXTERNAL
Please, please do not declare Bergamont Station surplus land. It is the cultural heart of our city. Likewise do not declare 4/5th streets surplus land. I am a 30+ resident of Santa Monica and my two children are proud graduates of Roosevelt, Lincoln and Samohi AND they have returned to raise their families here.

Sheila Joyce Smith
1133 9th St
Santa Monica,CA 90403
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 7 David Yakobson
From: Jo Baxter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Intel 11-A

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1522 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 8 ###
Sent from my iPad
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1523 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 9 David Yakobson
From: Debra Winchester <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:40 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Today's council meeting item 11A

EXTERNAL
I strongly oppose the proposed designation of the public lands identified below as surplus and add my support to the letter below.

TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1524 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 10 Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy. Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Debra
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1525 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 11 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Item 11A
From: Joan Grossman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 7:18 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 11A

EXTERNAL
I urge y,ou to not let the two properties in question be used for privatization.

They are needed for,public use.

Joan Grossman
[email protected]
424-268-4498
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1526 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 12 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 11.A. Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Please reject item 11.A. Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center.

Please refuse to declare either site ‘surplus”or exempt from the Surplus Land Act.

Our publicly owned land should not be given away without public hearings and public input.

Please oppose item 11.A.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 13 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Privatizing
From: Dorene Gottstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 3:22 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Privatizing

EXTERNAL
Please don't privatize our public land at Bergamot Station and 4th/5th and Arizona.

Respect
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 14 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Land at 4th/5th Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center From: Helen Corrigan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:13 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Land at 4th/5th Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
We oppose the designation of the property at 4th/5th Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center as "surplus lands."
These properties are anything but surplus in the increasingly dense, urban landscape of Santa Monica.

Bergamot, especially, is a cultural landmark. Once these properties are lost to private developers, they cannot be retrieved or restored and the quality of life here in the city is irrevocably decreased.

We urge you to vote AGAINST the designation of these properties as "surplus lands." Sincerely,
Helen Corrigan & Fritz Hoffmann
2500 4th Street #8
Santa Monica, CA 90405
We urge you to do the right thing and protect these properties from future development.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
From: Lee Rossignol <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:41 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 2 And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings!
Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Chen-Chen Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Hi,
Please do not privatize the public land at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona by claiming an impossible goal of building 1100 units of 100% affordable housing on those sites. Thank you.

Chen-Chen Lee
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 2 David Yakobson
From: Suzan Filipek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:18 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-!

EXTERNAL
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center We are sorely losing open space and keeping Santa Monica as a liveable city.

Thank you
Suzan Filipek
421 Marine St.

Santa Monica 90405
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 3 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: “Surplus land”
From: Connie Sonderegger <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:49 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: “Surplus land”

EXTERNAL
Please stop handing out our city’s property to private developers. You all have let Santa Monica become a wasteland of cranes, expensive apartment buildings, office buildings, and for lease signs. Driving north to south on Lincoln you can’t even see the sun anymore, let alone the horizon beyond the beach. I have lived here all of my 69 years and cannot believe what a mess this place has become. I also can’t believe that people choose to visit here.

For what? Please leave us just a bit of our Santa Monica. Bergamot and 4th, 5th and Arizona are there for the people that actually live here to enjoy a skating rink and a little culture.How about thinking of us for a change? Connie Sonderegger
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 4 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Protect Bergamot
From: Lee Gershuny <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:21 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Protect Bergamot

EXTERNAL
Bergamot would be wiped out as a renowned cultural center, and we would forever lose the potential for public land at 4th/5th and Arizona to be used as open space, something that’s increasingly vital as the downtown rapidly densifies.

Please protect Bergmot!
Lee Gershuny
10801 National Blvd. Suite 255
Los Angeles CA 90064
(310) 282-0777
Any email must include a property address and a phone number for contact.

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1535 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 5 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Oppose Agenda Item-11 A
From: Randolph Visser <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:31 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item-11 A

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers ,
My wife and I are 50+ year residents of Santa Monica. We are 100% against Agenda Item 11-A, which would permit the City to declare these two huge parcels "Surplus Land", selling them to private developers, and allowing yet more monstrous development . Please do not approve .

Randolph & Linda Visser
1122 Maple Street , SM, CA 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1536 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 6 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Keep Public land Public
From: Jeffrey Hahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:19 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Keep Public land Public

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 7 And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings!
Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 8 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: BERGAMOT
From: Janet Heinle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:29 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: BERGAMOT

EXTERNAL
DO NOT PRIVATIZE BERGAMOT! What the heck is wrong with you! Have you not destroyed us enough! STOP!!!! Janet Heinle
1047 Lincoln
90403
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 9 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: 11A
From: Linda Androlia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:45 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: 11A

EXTERNAL
Do not take our loved Bergamont station and give it to developers or anyone else. It is wonderful as it is As well as the land at 4/5th Arizona
Linda Androlia
211 California Ave
SM
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 10 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: 'surplus land?'
From: Randall Klarin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:26 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: 'surplus land?'

EXTERNAL
Please do NOT allocate the prime lots at 4/5th and Arizona and the lot at Bergamot Station as surplus. They are NOT surplus, they are essential.

Randall Klarin
RW Klarin
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 11 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Item 11-A
From: Gabrielle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:33 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 11-A

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Stop destroying the City with mega development. It is a disgrace.

Respectfully,
Gabrielle de Benedictis
1130 Pearl St
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 12 Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 13 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Bergamot Station
From: Mara Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:17 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Bergamot Station

EXTERNAL
Please note, for council meeting that Bergamot Station is a treasured art focused location, NOT surplus land.

It’s already changed enough, please leave it alone.

Mara Thompson,
Santa Monica
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 14 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
From: Shari Varnoos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:26 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 15 more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Sincerely
S. Varnoos
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 16 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Item 11A on 8/27 agenda
From: Peter Spelman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:26 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 11A on 8/27 agenda

EXTERNAL
Hello Council Members:

I am writing in opposition to the proposal to declare the property at 4th/5th & Arizona and at Bergamot Station as "surplus" land. As others have pointed out, this will most likely lead to the loss of public space (of which we have so little in Santa Monica) and the ultimate privatization of those properties.

Please do the right thing and protect this community. Don't sell us out. We're watching, and we vote.

Thank you.

Peter Spelman
730 Marine St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1547 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 17 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:53 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Hi, I am a resident of Santa Monica. I agree with SMCLC's letter.

I believe residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

Thanks,
Kelly
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 18 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Please DO NOT Privatize our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
From: Jessica Wilkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Please DO NOT Privatize our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL

TO: City Council
City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Please DO NOT Privatize our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
We residents told the City repeatedly we don’t want to see public land sacrificed for private developments. Examples are 4th/5th and Arizona negotiating the Plaza project, and recently efforts came to save the Civic Auditorium. It’s not surplus land as the Council declared.

The purpose of item 11-A, before you this Tuesday, is to privatize the public land at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona by claiming an impossible goal of building 1100 units of 100% affordable housing. Projects of this magnitude are highly unlikely to ever secure the amount of funding required.

It is unethical of Council to claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing.

When the affordable housing goal is deemed unfeasible, Council hopefully will not entertain other proposals, such as requiring only 25% affordable housing, together with market rate housing and commercial revenue-generating uses including hotels.

These projects should not be processed administratively without public hearings.

Publicly owned land uses should not be given away without ANY public input.

Skipping this process would be a fundamental failure of local government.

PLEASE refuse to declare the site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and instead tell staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 19 sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Thank you,
Jessica Wilkins family
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 20 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Bergamot space
11A
From: Dan Faris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:40 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Bergamot space

EXTERNAL
Please do not privatize the space on 4th/5th and Arizona. There is enough downtown already and It’s too much.

There are so many current projects going on and we need this publicly owned land to be public! And giving it way with out our input?? Shame on whoever is doing this.

Dan Faris
310-351-5205
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 21 David Yakobson
From: Scott McAuley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:04 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A comment

EXTERNAL
Please add this to public comments for today’s Council meeting. Thanks//Scott —
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Since its 19th-century transformation from California cattle ranch to suburban city, Santa Monica has become a tourist destination, an ideal place for a family home, and a venue to make a lot of money “improving” property.

These interests do not necessarily conflict, but there is plenty of opportunity for one to undermine the others. Privatizing public land — which is the gist of item 11-A — is a prime example.

In my opinion, we aren’t guaranteed that with this item. Please vote “no” on it. //Scott McAuley
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 22 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 8:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:

Please do NOT classify our City-owned lands as surplus property (Bergamot Art Center, 4th-5th Street.) I do not approve of privatizing public land. The voting public. not the City Council, needs to decide how to use it.

Thank you for your attention to my fervent request.

Best,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 23 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 8:01 AM
To: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline; David Martin Subject: City Council 8/27/2024 -- Item 11A --Privatizing Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center - OPPOSE - Wilmont Board of Directors

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and City Council Members, Requested Call for Action: The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board of Directors opposes Item 11A and urges the Council to refuse to declare either site "surplus" or exempt from the Surplus Land Act (SLA), and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide broken down by market vs. affordable, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
Residents have told the city repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the city was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

The sole purpose of item 11-A, before you this Tuesday, is to privatize the public land at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona by claiming an impossible goal of building 1,100 units of 100% affordable housing on Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 24 those sites. Even the staff report concedes that projects of this magnitude are highly unlikely to ever secure the amount of funding required.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

These mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings!
Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown and city is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 25 David Yakobson
From: Sandy Weisman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 8:01 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I strongly agree with the letter you have received from the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC).

I’m sick of seeing our beautiful city destroyed by your decisions to develop and destroy.

Sincerely,
Sandra Weisman
1102 11th St. #305
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Helen Corrigan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:17 PM
Cc: councilmtgitems

We urge you to vote AGAINST the designation of these properties as "surplus lands." Do the right thing and protect these properties from future development.

Sincerely,
Helen Corrigan & Fritz Hoffmann
2500 4th Street #8
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Bruce Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City land use
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
I just sent in a letter to urge the deciders to go w/ the people who love our city, as is, more or less.

Thank you, Bruce F Brown
[email protected] - Cell 310-351-5149
Brown Ósvaldsson, Inc.
1333 Pine St. SM 90405 - Lic. 523683
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:09 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 3 Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

I have been a Santa Monica resident for almost 40 years and I have seen our city deteriorate from a quiet costal community to a noisy, traffic-ridden, over-commercialized extension of the rest of Los Angeles. I have written countless protests against these negative changes, but it seems the big corporate interests have triumphed every time. I’m sick of it. We all are. Do you represent the residents, or the outside Big Money, Big Corporate interests? Sincerely
Ted Myers
Santa Monica 90403
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 7:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Gleam Davis; David White; Douglas Sloan Subject: CIty Council Agenda item 11-A - Request that Council Vote NO on the proposed use of city owned land

EXTERNAL
August 27, 2024
To: Mayor Brock and City Council members
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: Agenda item 11-A – 4th/5th & Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center Dear Mayor Brock and Council,
In the interest of the long-term economic health of our city and the critical need to preserve our limited open space for the common good, the Board of Northeast Neighbors requests that the Council reject the staff proposal and vote NO on 11-A.

While these two parcels were designated for Affordable Housing Development in the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element, this Council can and should revisit this designation and engage with the community before moving forward.

Thank you
Tricia Crane on behalf of the Board of Northeast Neighbors Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 6:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Iten 11-A

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council
FROM: Nancy Griffin and family - 3 generation Santa Monica residents.

RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

We are horrified and devastated by how Santa Monica is changing and NOT for the better.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 3 Nancy Griffin and family
3rd generation Santa Monica residents
630 San Vicente Blvd.

Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 4 David Yakobson
From: Gary Freedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 6:09 AM
To: [email protected]; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: Item 11.A on Council Agenda

EXTERNAL
To the City Council and City Clerk
Please note for the official record my objection to Item 11.A. on tonight's agenda.

Bergamot Station has been under utilized for too many years, and this proposed use will only do less for the City than it does now.

Gary Freedman
533 9th Street
Santa Monica, Ca
resident since 1975
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 5 David Yakobson
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 5:34 AM
To: Council Mailbox; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A

EXTERNAL
I strongly oppose this proposal to declare our public properties at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona as "surplus land".

I furthermore oppose any proposal to build "affordable" housing on those publicly owned sites.

Faustino Garza
37-year homeowner and resident
Sunset Park

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 6 David Yakobson
From: Christie Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 5:13 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Regarding Council item 11-A, I urge you NOT to declare public land at Bergamot Station and 4th/5th St sites as “surplus” or exempt from the SLA.

The loss of the Bergamot site as a unique center for the arts would be another sad chapter in the apparent disregard for preserving the few cultural offerings our town has left to offer residents and tourists alike.

The development of the 4th/5th St. site in the center of town would be another extension of what seems to be the current goal of creating canyons of mega residences akin to urban New York rather than retaining a comfortable beach town with a balance of commercial, residential and open spaces.

It would like to see current taxpayers have a say in how this public land is used.

Thank you for carefully considering this action.

C. Savage
Sent from my iPad
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1566 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 2:45 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council
FROM: Alexandra Baron
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Cheers,
Alexandra Baron, Santa Monica resident
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1567 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 8 Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1568 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 9 David Yakobson
From: Ed Harker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 1:50 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A - Aug 27 2024

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I wholeheartedly agree with the letter below. PLEASE do not grant "surplus" status to our publicly owned lands. I'm particularly appalled at the idea that the city would lose the Bergemot Center, just the way it is, an oasis of culture, a true gift for our city. You can go deep with artistic visions and on a personal level (without feeling you're in a high end tourist trap like certain developments might become).

Sincerely, don't make this tragic mistake for our genuinely aesthetic city.

Thank you,
Ed Harker, resident since 1984
2029 20th St
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1569 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 10 When, inevitably, that 100% affordable housing goal is deemed unfeasible, Council will then be able to entertain other proposals, such as requiring only 25% affordable housing, together with market rate housing and commercial revenue-generating uses, like hotels. That’s possible under another exemption of the Surplus Land Act, not specifically cited in the staff report just as the specific 100% affordable housing exemption wasn’t specified either.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1570 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 11 David Yakobson
From: mdosti <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 12:42 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council
FROM: Marya Dosti, Santa Monica Resident
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
I concur with the opinion noted in the letter below from the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) opposing the privatizing our public land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center.

Sincerely,
Marya Dosti
###
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings!
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 12 Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built. ###
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 13 David Yakobson
From: Randi Singer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 11:40 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

Even the staff report concedes that projects of this magnitude are highly unlikely to ever secure the amount of funding required.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Thank you,
Randi Singer
Santa Monica resident
2700 Neilson Way Apt 1031
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1573 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 14 David Yakobson
From: Allison Dollar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:47 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Bergamot Arts Center property certainly not "surplus"

EXTERNAL
August 26, 2024
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
It has been brought to my attention that you and the City are considering privatizing the Bergamot Arts Center using some workarounds to strictures by leveraging bids which incorporate 100% affordable housing units on the property.

Sigh. How many times will you be hoodwinked by this tired trope? There is ample evidence that THIS WON'T WORK. Why are we still following other beautiful small beach cities in this nation into the sewer of overdevelopment? Using land this way doesn't solve the housing crisis. It merely destroys the whole value of living in this city.

Does no one there have any imagination as to leveraging more modern models combining public/private partnerships, corporate sponsorship, consumer brands, i.e. restrained and thematic mixed use? As I've noted before, it's difficult for me to imagine being so short sighted. I'm not opposed to some development there, adding a measured and realistic amount of housing and perhaps some retail. But it's possible to do that and still retain its primacy as an arts center with open space for the public.

Otherwise, once again you're taking the easy way out by kowtowing to private interests in a short sighted bid for short-term cash. We're way into the 21st century. Do better.

Respectfully,
Allison Dollar
[email protected]
310 428 5079
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1574 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 15 David Yakobson
From: Rosemary Ford <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:47 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

Even the staff report concedes that projects of this magnitude are highly unlikely to ever secure the amount of funding required.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1575 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 16 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Morse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:20 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27/24 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council
FROM: Nancy Morse
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center Do not declare city owned property as “exempt surplus land”. Once land leaves city ownership, it does not come back. Once buildings are built, the open space is lost. As this land belongs to the citizens, it should have a use for and by citizens.

Council needs to listen to the citizens who objected to the Plaza at 4th/5th and Arizona, and objected to the Civic Auditorium taken out of public use. Declaring the Bergamot Arts Center surplus would change the character of the arts center.

To privatize public lands is rude and disrespectful to the public.

It would be irresponsible for city council to do this.

I have been a resident of Santa Monica since the mid '80s, and in my present residence since 1990. Please keep Santa Monica for the people.
-Nancy Morse
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 17 David Yakobson
From: Ashley Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:14 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Ashley Griffin
Lifelong Santa Monica resident
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 18 David Yakobson
From: Susan hires <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:14 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
please don’t sell our public land such as 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamont. We need to support children, teens, young people and people of all ages within our community with wholesome activities to do. These public space provides this.

Thank you , Susan Hires,
resident owner in Santa Monica.

Sent from iPhone 812-343-5182
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 19 David Yakobson
From: A Glennon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:50 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern,
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 20 We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Respectfully,
Angélique Glennon
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 21 David Yakobson
From: Abby Adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:13 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
I agree 1000% with the SMCLC regarding NOT declaring the property that Bergamot Arts sits on surplus land in order to sell out to developers who are ruining our city! Abby Adams
resident for 40 years
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 22 Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 23 David Yakobson
From: Rebecca Nunnelee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:11 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
I respectfully request the City Council vote against approval of item 11-A, and refuse to privatize the public land at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona. Please stop, think about the consequences of declaring public land as “surplus land,” which clearly would pave the way for its sale for non-cultural uses (i.e., private development that does not benefit the residents of Santa Monica).

City Council members are fully aware of the huge mega projects that have been forced on Santa Monica. Before moving forward with any further development (via use of “surplus land,”) it makes more sense to assess the current status of housing projects city wide. This information should be freely shared with all residents of Santa Monica. High density projects have appeared throughout the City, with no input from residents. This pattern must cease.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 24 attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Rebecca Nunnelee
City Resident
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 25 David Yakobson
From: Marianne <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 8:48 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 26 that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

We need arts and culture in Santa Monica, and we need Bergamot Art Center.

Thank you!
Concerned SM resident
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 27 David Yakobson
From: adams archives <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 7:55 PM
To: Michelle Page
Cc: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Please do not privatize Bergamot

EXTERNAL
You are so sweet, thank you!
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 1:55 PM Michelle Page <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council:

You are sitting on a gem that is irreplaceable and that should be nurtured. It is something to be proud of and is unique to Santa Monica.

A Michelle Page
--
310.828.2628 Land line - no texting
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 28 David Yakobson
From: Bob Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 8:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: David Martin; David White; Susan Cline; Jing Yeo; Jennifer Taylor; Jenny Rogers; Sofia Klatzker; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola; Dan Jansenson; Thane Roberts; Mario FondaBonardi; Samuel Tolkin; Michael Jolly; Marie Standing; Hillbrand, Jack; Dara Kimball; Arlene Hopkins; cheryl rhoden
Subject: August 27, 2024 Council Meeting - Item 11A - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock & Council Members:

I am in agreement with the attached position papers from SMCLC (Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City), and from Recreation & Parks Commissioner Ann Hoover, and express my opposition to Agenda Item 11A appearing before you tomorrow night. You are being asked to vote on whether the public’s land at 4th/5th & Arizona, as well as the Bergamot Arts Center, should be declared “surplus land”. I urge you to oppose this item and vote NO.

Also attached are links to 14 SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) columns, spanning more than 10 years, addressing the need for open space, a ‘Central Park’, at 4th/5th & Arizona.

Thank you,
Bob Taylor, AIA
Ocean Park Resident
From SMCLC:

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 29 The sole purpose of item 11-A, before you this Tuesday, is to privatize the public land at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona by claiming an impossible goal of building 1100 units of 100% affordable housing on those sites. Even the staff report concedes that projects of this magnitude are highly unlikely to ever secure the amount of funding required.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Dear Mayor Brock and Esteemed Councilmembers:

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 30 There is shock in many corners of the City upon learning that two of our largest remaining public land assets were committed in Program 2.E. of the 6th Cycle Housing Element for huge amounts of affordable housing without ANY public process to highlight and discuss that decision with the community, despite the fact that our certified Housing Element states that affordable housing on City-owned properties will be subject to a public process:
"Program 2.E. commits City-owned sites for the development of affordable housing through a public process that would maximize the amount of affordable housing that could be feasibly developed." (page 111, City of Santa Monica / 2021-2029 Housing Element)

There is something seriously wrong with State housing production rules and policy, lobbied for by developers, and also with local decision-making, likewise impacted by developer interests, that now has Council poised to gut the Bergamot Arts and Cultural campus and obliterate the last hope of a park and other public amenities at 4th/5th & Arizona in Downtown. Downtown is densifying at a dizzying clip - its residents need more parks and other community & recreational space for basic livability, wellness, and quality of life.

So I vehemently OPPOSE putting these public assets on the chopping block in the manner contemplated by the Staff Report and Attachments, but if you are intent upon doing so tomorrow night, I respectfully encourage you to do the following:
 Deal structures - please confirm adherence to proposed ground lease structures - NEVER SELL PUBLIC LAND!!
 Order - Determine to do 4th/5th & Arizona first with the parcels done separately to maximize the possibility of affordable housing funding / tax credits for the sites + avoid the public expenditure of having to hire 2 new Staffers
 4th/5th Outreach - Direct a robust community engagement process ASAP for 4th/5th & Arizona to gather community input regarding outdoor space, other community amenities, and preferred revenuegenerating commercial uses at the site  Direct that the RFP for 4th/5th & Arizona be informed by the community engagement process and include at minimum -
o Significant increase to the # of affordable units required at these sites to take some of the pressure off at Bergamot
o Mandate for a community-serving commercial use such as a ground level indoor permanent ice/skating rink & bowling alley & community center
o Inclusion of rentable large community meeting room/event space, with a 300-person suggested seating capacity (and a 150-person capacity for banquet-style seating) + appropriate storage for tables and chairs
o Include usable public open and green space(s)
 Bergamot Outreach - Direct a robust community engagement process ASAP for Bergamot to gather community input and ideas regarding retention of existing businesses, the theatre, galleries, etc., plus outdoor space for events & other community amenities, with the goal of maintaining iconic Bergamot as a premier destination for visual arts and culture in our City at least at ground level
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 31  Direct that the RFP for Bergamot be informed by the community engagement process and include at minimum -
o Requirement for a plan to retain all existing tenants so as to maintain the arts and cultural campus
o Requirement for artist housing as part of the affordable units o Requirement for a 300-person seating capacity meeting room (with 150-person capacity for banquet-style seating) + appropriate storage for tables and chairs, which would be rentable for community and other events
o A mandate for open, green space(s)
 Direct Planning Staff to construct and implement ASAP an aggressive program to incentivize conversion of empty office spaces into affordable housing to help meet the affordable housing quota mandated by the State in this 6th Cycle Housing Element and to take the pressure off of Bergamot and 4th/5th & Arizona
Thank you so much for your time reading this and for your careful consideration of these difficult decisions involving precious community assets.

Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 28 years
Recreation and Parks Commissioner
Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow columns re: 4th/5th & Arizona:
https://smmirror.com/2019/10/sma-r-t-we-need-a-real-plaza-at-santa-monica/ https://smmirror.com/2019/10/plaza-at-santa-monicas-groundhog/ https://smmirror.com/2019/10/plaza-at-santa-monicas-groundhog-day-part-2/ https://smmirror.com/2019/09/is-santa-monicas-heart-for-sale-2/ https://smmirror.com/2019/03/open-space-is-there-any-left/ https://smmirror.com/2019/02/is-santa-monicas-heart-for-sale/ https://smmirror.com/2019/01/4th-street-and-arizona-ave/ https://smmirror.com/2019/10/sma-r-t-we-need-a-real-plaza-at-santa-monica/ https://smdp.com/2016/01/09/why-urban-planning-in-santa-monica-is-a-wicked-problem/ https://smdp.com/2015/10/24/plaza-santa-monica-its-deja-vu-again/ https://smdp.com/2015/10/17/just-say-no/
https://smdp.com/2015/08/08/santa-monica-championing-parks/ https://smdp.com/2014/07/31/sm-a-r-t-s-questions-santa-monica-city-council-candidates/ https://smdp.com/2014/06/21/smart-thinking/
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 32 Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 33 David Yakobson
From: Maia Berens <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 8:08 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Do not privatize public lands

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 34 Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 35 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 8:02 PM
To: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Gleam Davis
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan; councilmtgitems
Subject: SMCC 2024-08-27 Item 11.A. - City-Owned Sites Designated as Surplus Land

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and Honorable Councilmembers,
Re: SMCC 2024-08-27 Item 11.A. - City-Owned Sites Designated as Surplus Land This leƩer is in strong opposiƟon to any and all recommendaƟons to approve this item. Below are the specifics of this opposiƟon.

Woefully Incomplete Financial Impact Analysis:

Completely absent is any analysis of the twin negaƟve impacts of general fund revenue constricƟon from shrinking the commercial infrastructure support base and the parallel increase in general fund cost trends driven by the massive Regional Housing Needs AllocaƟon (RHNA) housing development being built at breakneck pace in the city. Specifically:

1. Staff admission in this item’s report that the full extent of the direct (i.e. parking revenue) financial impact may be unknown and will require further study despite the irreversible nature of the surplus designaƟon decision. Impact on current and potenƟal revitalized future business revenues (and associated sales taxes) is unacknowledged.

2. Nonexistent analysis of impact to the city’s commercial revenue generaƟng capabiliƟes (and therefore associated sales tax) for all these proposed disposals of city assets

3. Nonexistent analysis of the accelerated cost growth in the General Fund from the massive state RHNA-driven development that will require accelerated General Fund revenue growth to pay for services (e.g. Fire, Police, Public Works) and infrastructure investment
a. The economically baseless and discreƟonary RHNA allocaƟons of 8,895 units should have been audited by the city and strongly challenged in 2019 during the 6 th Cycle draŌing period
b. The imperaƟve of an audit in 2019 was clearly known at the Ɵme as then-mayor McKeown noted in the 12-10-2019 Council meeƟng the risk to the city of the Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 36 allocaƟons ballooning to an effecƟve 30,000+ unit development impact (which sƟll holds)
c. Given the path of significant and permanent economic dislocaƟon this city asset disposal process poses to our city, these allocaƟons should be audited and challenged now, especially in anƟcipaƟon of the upcoming 7th Cycle allocaƟon process

4. Erroneous and completely misleading asserƟons of no (General Fund) financial impact from the eliminaƟon of commercial infrastructure, like what was done in the 2021 Parking Structure 3 (PS3) report
a. With the known increased cost pressures on the General Fund services and infrastructure spend from RHNA development, the need to increase the rate of General Fund revenue growth completely contradicts the PS3 financial analysis asserƟon that status quo parking capacity with the PS6 addiƟon was somehow a sufficient tradeoff

5. Nonexistent analysis of the revenue growth requirements of the General Fund, especially given the City’s recent General Fund-driven Lease Revenue Bond credit raƟng downgrade

6. Omission of any acknowledgement, let alone quanƟficaƟon, of the fundamental reason for the existence of this public infrastructure’s in the first place – to support business acƟvity that is a major contributor to the city’s General Fund through sales tax revenues. None of these potenƟal city revenue losses are even acknowledged, let alone quanƟfied.

DestrucƟon of revenue-generaƟng city assets
Disingenuously, the city is using the excuse of a Covid effect hangover, its own completely ineffecƟve homeless policies, and its irresponsible public safety policies, to support the narraƟve of a dead commercial environment and thereby jusƟfy dismantling irreplaceable commercial infrastructure. Asking for studies of parking structure uƟlizaƟon during these periods of depressed commercial acƟvity is a key example.

This agenda-serving city narraƟve would have us believe that the city is a bystander with absolutely no agency to turn anything around.

Our city government has agency to change the commercial course, and must do so.

This policy can only lead to huge increases resident taxaƟon These parallel negaƟve trends are creaƟng the unannounced pressure to migrate the city financial model to direct taxaƟon of the residents to support basic city services and ameniƟes. The eliminaƟon of commercial infrastructure (such as parking lots) increasingly Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 37 impedes not only a full commercial recovery but eliminates future commercially-driven revenue growth capabiliƟes.

No resident parƟcipaƟon or representaƟon
Not only are the residents excluded from this decision to eliminate the city’s tradiƟonal economic model, but their opportunity to vote looks to become strictly limited to an aŌer-thefact plebiscite on how much to increase their parcel taxes and those of our businesses to avoid service cutbacks and eliminaƟons.

ImperaƟve for City Planning on Commercial Recovery
The city’s narraƟve insists that it has no agency to turn the commercial environment around. This asserƟon cannot be further from reality. It is inconceivable that a beauƟful world-renown beachside city that retains it’s potenƟal to be a huge global visitor desƟnaƟon, with an exclusively unique civic asset porƞolio of the Promenade, Santa Monica Place, the Civic Center and the Pier, lacks the ability to revitalize its business environment to world-class levels and standards.

With only 4% of the city’s land area, Downtown drove over 34% of the city’s sales tax receipts in 2012. In 2023, that share of sales tax receipts had plummeted to less than 22%. Total city sales tax growth from 2012 to 2023 was an anemic 8.8%, or 0.8% per year.

Conclusions

1. The city needs to become laser focused on ensuring maintenance of its own financial health.

2. The city needs to become very serious in the planning and execuƟon of its commercial recovery.

3. The city narraƟve that work-from-home, online commerce and other factors render the legacy economic model irrelevant makes absolutely no sense. One of the City’s basic jobs is to adapt its commercial policies to ensure the residents thrive.

4. The first step in this process is the immediate cessaƟon of commercial asset destrucƟon.

5. This item must be voted NO!
Respecƞully,
Marc L. Verville
Chair, Santa Monica Audit SubcommiƩee
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 38 David Yakobson
From: Darko Yo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 7:57 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Against City Council 8/27 item 11-A

EXTERNAL
The sole purpose of item 11-A, before you this Tuesday, is to privatize the public land at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona by claiming an impossible goal of building 1100 units of 100% affordable housing on those sites. Even the staff report concedes that projects of this magnitude are highly unlikely to ever secure the amount of funding required.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 39 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 7:32 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
What is the hurry? Don't do anything rash that will change the essence of Santa Monica, just so that developers can make some money.

NMS is offering six weeks of free rent for their apartment buildings downtown. Clearly, there is a gut of expensive rental properties. We don't need more.

Long-time Santa Monica residents want the opportunity to buy a home. All of the new housing is rental.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

When, inevitably, that 100% affordable housing goal is deemed unfeasible, the Council will then be able to entertain other proposals, such as requiring only 25% affordable housing, together with market-rate housing and commercial revenue-generating uses, like hotels. That’s possible under another exemption of the Surplus Land Act, not specifically cited in the staff report just as the specific 100% affordable housing exemption wasn’t specified either.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 40 We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident and voter
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 41 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 7:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council:

Public land must be used for a public purpose. That is true at the airport, at Bergamot, and at 4th/5th and Arizona.

Residents want a PARK at 4th/5th and Arizona with underground parking to provide revenue. The Downtown area needs this green space! The City needs this green space. Not another high rise.

I will be watching your votes on Item 11.

Thank you.

Cindy Bendat (resident and homeowner since 1990)
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 42 David Yakobson
From: Dan Charn. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 7:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; David White; [email protected] Subject: CC MTG 8/27/24 ITEM 11-A OPPOSE PRIVATIZATION

EXTERNAL
Sent by Danielle Charney
Nobody says it better.

All I have to say is 'STOP SELLING OUR CITY OUT"
FIRE STEPHANIE REICH..DAVID MARTIN.. AND
DAVID WHITE NOW...

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 43 more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.
###
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 44 David Yakobson
From: Carol Eisman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Publicy Owned Lands should be for Public Use

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 45 Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy. Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Sincerely,
Carol Eisman
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 46 David Yakobson
From: Leigh Bushnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:50 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 47 that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 48 David Yakobson
From: Abigail Sheiner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:29 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

These mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings!
Publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is important.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 49 Thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Thank you.

Regards,
Abigail Sheiner
90036
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 50 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:18 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Council item 11-A
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:09 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: Council item 11-A
Importance: High
Dear City Council,
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 51 And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings!
Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 52 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Jennifer Taylor; Jenny Rogers; Sofia Klatzker; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola Subject: Fwd: Fw: August 27, 2024 Council Meeting - Item 11.A - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and Esteemed Councilmembers:

I agree with many within Santa Monica to urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size actually to enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Please consider the recommendations, from Ann Hoover, for the city to embrace the Bergamont and the 4th/5th Outreach programs to enhance the Santa Monica spirit of place and not sell the public lands without the benefit of public and professional input from the citizens.

Thank you,
Jack Hillbrand, President
STUDIO1323
Resident,17 years

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 53 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Turman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:08 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: council item 11-a

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 54 Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy. Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Andrew Turman
Highland Avenue, Santa Monica 90405
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 55 David Yakobson
From: Tim Hanson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
I agree wholeheartedly with SMCLC's position. And I am a frequent visitor to Bergamot Arts Center.

It is a Santa Monica treasure, and it would be a crime against the city to cede it to commercial development.

Tim Hanson
223 Strand St., Apt. F
90405
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 56 Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 57 David Yakobson
From: lmarreola <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:40 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Privatizing Public Land

EXTERNAL
Please do not privatize public land. Public land is precious and should be used for things the public and tax payers want.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 58 David Yakobson
From: Customer Service <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 11-A

EXTERNAL
Please do not use the 2 properties as SURPLUS LAND.

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 59 David Yakobson
From: Jaleh MIRHASHEMI <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Jennifer Taylor; Jenny Rogers; Sofia Klatzker; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola
Subject: August 27, 2024 Council Meeting - Item 11.A - OPPOSE - Development of the 4th/5th and Arizona & Bergamot Station Arts Center to Housing

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and Esteemed Councilmembers,
This is really unacceptable!! These two precious lands are owned by the public and we the residents need the City and Council to consider the projects that are more community oriented with the community input - such as a public recreational park on 4th/5th St & Arizona (i.e., Central Park, NY) and an art cultural community center (i.e., Montmarte Art District, Paris.)
After all the huge developments in downtown, i.e., building housings in parking lot #3, Recreational park space is even more necessary now.

Bergamot Station Art Center can be a community center for arts and artists with small art museum/exhibitions surrounded by a green space that can attract visitors from the city and elsewhere.

Why is the city in so much of a rush to build public lands in addition to approving all developers’ plans for housing/affordable housings. We all know that there are not such affordable housing options for residents but the market rate housings are being built for non-residents and this is only benefitting the developers and their supporters.

We need the city staff to provide the current list and number of housings that have been built or are in the processes of being built in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element/RHNA. Also we need to know the current number of empty offices and housings in Santa Monica before the next housing cycle.

Thank you for your consideration and your support of the residents’ needs.

Sincerely,
Jaleh Mirhashemi
Santa Monica Resident - 23 years
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 60 David Yakobson
From: Judy Hopkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:28 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
As a long-time resident of Santa Monica, I agree wholeheartedly with the letter sent to you today by the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City opposing the declaration of the publicly owned lands at 4th/5th and Arizona and the Bergamot Arts Center as “surplus” land. Any surplus City-owned land should be used for public purposes. Santa Monica is already park poor, and giving up the opportunity to build a park in the midcity doesn’t make sense. Nor does destroying Bergamot as a cultural center. Overdevelopment is already rampant in Santa Monica and benefits only the developers.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Judy Hopkins
844 7th St. #7
SM 90403
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 61 David Yakobson
From: Lee Gershuny <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Protect Bergamot

Please protect Bergmot!
Lee Gershuny
10801 National Blvd. Suite 255
Los Angeles CA 90064
(310) 282-0777
Any email must include a property address and a phone number for contact.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 62 David Yakobson
From: Gerry OWEN <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:20 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
We, Gerry and Linda Owen, OPPOSE selling the parcels that would allow more building, higher building, in Santa Monica. We’ve lived here 25 years, walked from our home to work at 320 Wilshire, enjoyed the Promenade - before it became corporate, survived COVID but had to give up our office. This was the first time in my life that Gerry could walk anywhere.

But Santa Monica has grown higher, not friendlier. Looking down Lincoln, seven cranes penetrated the sky!
Please, there need to be limits to this kind of growth. We mourn the Santa Monica we moved into those year ago.

Gerry and Linda Owen
Gerry Owen MFT 310-395-9631
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 63 David Yakobson
From: George Ferrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:06 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

We do not favor designating the land on which the Bergamot Arts Center sits to be "surplus" and thus eligible for development into housing and possibly commercial uses. We favor using the land for cultural and recreational purposes. Relative to comparably-sized cities in California, Santa Monica is deficient in parks and recreational and cultural facilities, and when asked, citizens have overwhelmingly favored increasing such public amenities. Again, the city staff is proposing actions that oppose the what citizens want. Whose benefit is the staff working for anyway? We urge the council to represent the desires of residents instead of special interests.

Peggy and George Ferrell
338 15th Street
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 64 David Yakobson
From: karenalways <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Bergamot Station - unique Santa Monica value :City council 8/27 Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I grew up on Santa Monica and now live nearby with my children. My mother has been in her Santa Monica home for about 55 years. We treasure Bergamot Station as the cultural hub it’s been for my children’s lifetime, and the land at 4th-5th streets and Arizona as well.

I ask that you decline to declare the publicly owned lands at 4th/5th and Arizona and the Bergamot Arts Center as “surplus” land. Privatizing this public land would gravely diminish some of the city’s finer qualities, and be contrary to the values instilled in us throughout our Santa Monica upbringing.

The sole purpose of item 11-A, before you this Tuesday, is to privatize the public land at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona by claiming an impossible goal of building 1100 units of 100% affordable housing on those sites. Even the staff report concedes that projects of this magnitude are highly unlikely to ever secure the amount of funding required. But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government. Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy. Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 65 Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement. We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Thank you for considering the voices that Santa Monica has cultivated for many decades, including my and my family’s and neighbors’ voices here. Please do the right thing. Preserve the accessibility and culture that make this city stand out and welcome all.

Karen Dreyfuss
310-339-7707
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: karenalways <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Bergamot Station - unique Santa Monica value :City council 8/27 Item 11-A

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 2 Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement. We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1627 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 3 David Yakobson
From: Michele Modglin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:53 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 11-A council meeting on August 27

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council:

The following letter reflects my exact feelings about item 11-A, to be discussed on August 27th.

Please preserve our public open spaces for the residents of Santa MOnica! Build parks not multistory structures that hide the open blue skies and stop the flow of our lovely sea breezes.

Enough already! Respect the wishes of the tax paying residents who do not want our public lands destroyed and made unusable by the community at large.

Thank you,
Michele Modglin
Resident in SM for more that 40 years
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 4 And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings!
Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.
###
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1629 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 5 David Yakobson
From: Michael Saltzman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Bergamot Station

EXTERNAL
I’m including what amounts to a form letter someone sent me regarding Bergamot Station, which is in a situation I wasn’t aware of.

Suffice it to say that it would be foolish, short-sighted, and outrageous to do anything that jeopardizes the continuing existence of this rare and valuable piece of Santa Monica. I vehemently oppose any proposed changes. That’s where I stand, and urge the council to reject whatever plans are under consideration. But just to be thorough, here’s the letter I was sent, and which I agree with 100%.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 6 housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Sincerely,
Michael Saltzman
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1631 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 7 David Yakobson
From: Metin Mangir <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:47 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: PLEASE Do NOT surplus "publicly owned lands at 4th/5th and Arizona and the Bergamot Arts Center"

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 8 Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy. Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Respectfully,
Metin Mangir, PhD
536 16th street
Santa Monica 90402
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1633 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 9 David Yakobson
From: Bridget Terry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:37 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Councit Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Please do n ot privatize our private land in Santa Monica — Thank You
Bridget Terry
1237 22ND STREET - SUITE 1
SANTA MONICA, CA. 90404
Ofc: 310-403-8540
[email protected]
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1634 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 10 David Yakobson
From: Mathew Millen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oscar de La Torre; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Caroline M. Torosis; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Douglas Sloan Subject: 8/27 Objection to 11A

EXTERNAL
The property at 4th / 5th and Arizona should be PARKLAND. The Parks Commission has voted FOUR TIMES recommending this property be used to expand our parkland. Given the huge number of new apartments being built between Lincoln Blvd and 5th St in the downtown area, those tenants need a place to relax outside, for a child playground parents who live in these new apartments can walk to.

USING BERGAMOT IN THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A CABRINI GREEN STYLE LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECT VIOLATES FAIR HOUSING LAWS AND GOVERNMENT CODE 8899.50 the State of Calif rejected the initial housing element because the city was dumping low income housing in the historically segregated Pico Neighborhood that "perpetuated segregation" As Bergamot is within the Pico Neighborhood ..REJECT THE STAFF WHO APPARENTLY ARE FOLLOWERS OF

GEORGE WALLACE AND DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SUPREME COURT CASE Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas that ruled school segregation unconstitutional ALSO APPLIES TO HOUSING SEGREGATION. See generally
Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 304 F. Supp. 736 (N.D. Ill 1969) enforcing 296 F. Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 1969) and Gautreaux v. Landrileu, 523 F. Sup. 665, 674, (N.D.Ill. 1981);425 U.S. 284; Otero v. NY Housing Authority, 484 F.2d. 1122 (2nd Cir. 1973), United States v. Yonkers Board of Education, 624 F.Supp. 1276 (S.D.N.Y.1985). NAACP v. HUD, 801 F.2d 593(1st Cir. 1986) , 817 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1987), Thompson v. HUD 348 F. Supp. 2d 398 (Md. 2005), 42 U.S.C. Section 3608(e)(5) and 24 C.F.R. 1.4(b)(1)(iii)(&(iv) respectfully submitted
Mathew Millen
Pico Neighborhood resident
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1635 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Judy Kramer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:23 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: NOT to privatize our public land!

EXTERNAL
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
City Council do not let this happen, This land should not be privatized. It would seem to me that the City Council does not care about Santa Monica and what the people that live in the city want. Santa Monica is being destroyed by all this development.

Judy Kramer
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1636 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:20 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 Item 11-A

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1637 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 3 Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy. Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Celia Szew
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1638 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 4 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:20 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A

EXTERNAL
I fully agree with the below letter from SMCLC. No city-owned land should go for private development. You are only the caretakers and hold city land in trust for the public and have no right to give it away.

Thank you,
Harriet P. Epstein
Santa Monica taxpayer
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1639 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 5 Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1640 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 6 David Yakobson
From: Nina Girvetz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:18 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Bergamot Station Arts Center

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council
FROM: Nina Girvetz, Santa Monica resident for 40 years
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1641 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 7 Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy. Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Thank you,
Nina Girvetz
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1642 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 8 David Yakobson
From: Mary Hubbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Cc: Mary Hubbell
Subject: item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and Councilmembers;
I am writing to urge you to protect these public lands from private developments. Listen to the residents. Please stop privatizing our vital public lands.

We value the Bergamot Arts Center for continuing to provide opportunities for us to engage with art and the artists. Finding places like this locally is becoming increasingly difficult. Our city is known for its arts and cultural heritage. Please show that you support this heritage.

Each of the massive developments already in process and in the pipeline should be required to have 60% affordable units to meet the State’s housing requirements imposed on our communities. We shouldn’t have to lose any more of our open spaces and private lands to meet these requirements.

Thank you,
Mary Hubbell
Ocean Park
Sent from Mary's iPhone
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1643 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 9 David Yakobson
From: Brian Lasky <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:53 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I am not in favor of our city using public land for private developments. Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

As I am aware, the sole purpose of item 11-A, before you this Tuesday, is to privatize the public land at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona by claiming an impossible goal of building 1100 units of 100% affordable housing on those sites. Even the staff report concedes that projects of this magnitude are highly unlikely to ever secure the amount of funding required.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Thank you for your time,
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1644 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 10 Brian Lasky
SM Resident
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1645 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 11 David Yakobson
From: MILES WATKINS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:42 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
We are absolutely opposed to Agenda Item 11-A!
Do not declare these two huge parcels as “surplus land.” This is not in the best interest of your constituents, the citizens of the City of Santa Monica. Please vote accordingly.

Respectfully,
Miles & Jocelyn Watkins
502 9th Street
Santa Monica, California 90402
(310) 666-1073
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1646 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 12 David Yakobson
From: janine autolitano <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:42 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center The massive, thoughtless overdevelopment of Santa Monica is destroying our city! We have over 10% vacancy rate, nationally it's 6%. All these empty units need to be fined. Residents are sick and tired of our representatives just saying there is nothing we can do about state mandates. As far as we can see, you are not trying hard enough.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1647 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 13 We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Janine Autolitano
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1648 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 14 David Yakobson
From: Joyce Urode <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:37 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1649 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 15 David Yakobson
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:36 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1650 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 16 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Jennifer Taylor; Jenny Rogers; Sofia Klatzker; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola
Subject: August 27, 2024 Council Meeting - Item 11.A - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and Esteemed Councilmembers:

There is shock in many corners of the City upon learning that two of our largest remaining public land assets were committed in Program 2.E. of the 6th Cycle Housing Element for huge amounts of affordable housing without ANY public process to highlight and discuss that decision with the community, despite the fact that our certified Housing Element states that affordable housing on City-owned properties will be subject to a public process:
"Program 2.E. commits City-owned sites for the development of affordable housing through a public process that would maximize the amount of affordable housing that could be feasibly developed." (page 111, City of Santa Monica / 2021-2029 Housing Element)

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1651 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 17  4th/5th Outreach - Direct a robust community engagement process ASAP for 4th/5th & Arizona to gather community input regarding outdoor space, other community amenities, and preferred revenuegenerating commercial uses at the site  Direct that the RFP for 4th/5th & Arizona be informed by the community engagement process and include at minimum -
o Significant increase to the # of affordable units required at these sites to take some of the pressure off at Bergamot
o Mandate for a community-serving commercial use such as a ground level indoor permanent ice/skating rink & bowling alley & community center
o Inclusion of rentable large community meeting room/event space, with a 300-person suggested seating capacity (and a 150-person capacity for banquet-style seating) + appropriate storage for tables and chairs
o Include usable public open and green space(s)
 Bergamot Outreach - Direct a robust community engagement process ASAP for Bergamot to gather community input and ideas regarding retention of existing businesses, the theatre, galleries, etc., plus outdoor space for events & other community amenities, with the goal of maintaining iconic Bergamot as a premier destination for visual arts and culture in our City at least at ground level
 Direct that the RFP for Bergamot be informed by the community engagement process and include at minimum -
o Requirement for a plan to retain all existing tenants so as to maintain the arts and cultural campus
o Requirement for artist housing as part of the affordable units o Requirement for a 300-person seating capacity meeting room (with 150-person capacity for banquet-style seating) + appropriate storage for tables and chairs, which would be rentable for community and other events
o A mandate for open, green space(s)
 Direct Planning Staff to construct and implement ASAP an aggressive program to incentivize conversion of empty office spaces into affordable housing to help meet the affordable housing quota mandated by the State in this 6th Cycle Housing Element and to take the pressure off of Bergamot and 4th/5th & Arizona
Thank you so much for your time reading this and for your careful consideration of these difficult decisions involving precious community assets.

Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 28 years
Recreation and Parks Commissioner
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1652 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 18 David Yakobson
From: Randolph Visser <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Oppose Agenda Item-11 A

EXTERNAL
From: Randolph Visser <[email protected]>
Date: August 26, 2024 at 3:32:10 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item-11 A
Dear Councilmembers ,
My wife and I are 50+ year residents of Santa Monica. We are 100% against Agenda Item 11-A, which would permit the City to declare these two huge parcels "Surplus Land", selling them to private developers, and allowing yet more monstrous development . Please do not approve .

Randolph & Linda Visser
1122 Maple Street , SM, CA 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1653 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 19 David Yakobson
From: Jennifer Field <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:17 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I agree with the letter below. Do not privatize public land. Those lands are for the residents, not for private profit.

Regards,
Jennifer Field
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

When, inevitably, that 100% affordable housing goal is deemed unfeasible, Council will then be able to entertain other proposals, such as requiring only 25% affordable Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1654 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 20 housing, together with market rate housing and commercial revenue-generating uses, like hotels. That’s possible under another exemption of the Surplus Land Act, not specifically cited in the staff report just as the specific 100% affordable housing exemption wasn’t specified either.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1655 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:51 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am concerned and more than unhappy that we are again seriously considering making public land available for private development. The only purpose of item 11-A is to privatize the public land at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona by claiming an impossible goal of building 1100 units of 100% affordable housing on these sites. Even the staff report indicates that projects of this size are probably never going to be able to secure the funding required.

I understand that Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on the site.

It is all sounding very complicated and not quite right, and I don't like it all.

What I have understood is that the possible and perhaps probable MEGA projects that would result from all this rigamarole would destroy the Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4/5th and Arizona AND could happen without public hearings! I don't want our publicly owned land to be given away without any public input! We need Bergamot and we need open space. Please go back to the drawing board on this one.

I urge the Council to refuse to declare either site "surplus" or exempt from the SLA. I would ask the Council to instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Thank you,
Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1656 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 2 David Yakobson
From: Cathie Lamm <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1657 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 3 I urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

C a t h i e L y n n L a m m
 [email protected]
Everyone must decide for themselves whether they shall master their world or be mastered by it.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1658 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 4 David Yakobson
From: Brenda Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:47 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I urge that you NOT privatize the public land at Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th and Arizona. We need these spaces as they are: the Arts Center is a treasure to be preserved. We have enjoyed so many experiences there and want to continue to do so.

Also, we want to see the downtown space kept open for various uses by the residents of Santa Monica.

Please provide for all Santa Monica residents to have a voice and a choice in how these spaces are to be enjoyed.

Brenda Anderson
475 24th Street
Santa Monica
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1659 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 5 David Yakobson
From: Philip Schwartz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:46 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-A

EXTERNAL

RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th andArizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after theCouncil declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses
.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

That’s possible under another exemption of the Surplus Land Act, not specifically cited in the staff report just as thespecific 100% affordable housing exemption wasn’t specified either.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona,could be processed administratively with no public hearings!
Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy. Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that openspaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1660 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 6 We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Respectfully
Philip D Schwartz, Treasurer
909-911 Arizona Ave HOA
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1661 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 7 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:41 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I agree with SMCLC’s letter below. Even more, I guarantee that the voters agree with SMCLC.

I, and others, will not vote for someone who takes away our artistic treasure, Bergamot Arts Center, which
is an important cultural force for our community AND an attraction for tourists.

I also deeply oppose you privatizing the land at 4th and 5th. Some of you have claim you care
that Santa Monica remains special, not just LA. Some of you claim to care about the environment,
yet you continue to cut down trees and leave residents baking.

I, and others will simply not vote for any members who
take this land away from us. We need trees, community space. Have you no concern for water?
Other resources? How many more children need to be kidnapped before you see that this mad growth isn’t
helping provide housing or needed addiction and mental health services.

You know what’s right. Stop.

Enough is enough. You know the required numbers of affordable apartment was falsely inflated by lobbyists
who claimed to be non profit. You now have two people suing SMGov for discrimination and fraudulent
spending. You have 4,000 units sitting empty. 1/3 of new buildings are empty. Rents are not going down.

Don’t join the hall of shame.

Your actions have consequences. If you vote yes on privatizing, I and others will passionately oppose
your re-election. Taxation without representation has gone far enough.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1662 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 8 Sincerely,
Karen Croner
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1663 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 9 built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1664 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 10 David Yakobson
From: Kevin Flick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:38 PM
To: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: URGENT ACTION: Tell the Council by noon tomorrow NOT to privatize our public land!

EXTERNAL
I support your cause. but It is not obvious how to email them. I just forwarded the whole thing to [email protected]
I hope that is good enough but I don't know
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 12:20 PM SMCLC <[email protected]> wrote:

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SMC LC-headerT.gif
August 26, 2024
Dear Supporter of SMCLC,
Below is our letter to the City and the City Council strongly opposing an agenda item tomorrow night to declare the publicly owned lands at 4th/5th and Arizona and the Bergamot Arts Center as “surplus” land.

This would mean that those sites would be taken out of public use for all of us and privatized for huge private developments.

Bergamot would be wiped out as a renowned cultural center, and we would forever lose the potential for public land at 4th/5th and Arizona to be used as open space, something that’s increasingly vital as the downtown rapidly densifies.

If you agree with our letter, please email your respectful opinions to the Council at [email protected] by noon tomorrow, specifying Council item 11-A and cc:ing the clerk at [email protected] Thank you for your support.

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1665 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 11 Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for noncultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built. ###
Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors to sign up for updates and join in our efforts.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1666 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 12 Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City | 1112 Montana Ave. #174 | Santa Monica, CA 90403 US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Constant Contact
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1667 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 13 David Yakobson
From: MICHAEL DALLING <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:38 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Do not privatize the public land at Bergamont Arts Center and at 4th/5th Streets and Arizona - this land should be public land and Santa Monica has a responsibility to respect public land and protect it for the sake of all Santamonicans. The greed of private enterprises cannot take precedence over the benefit of all. Consider this carefully.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1668 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 14 David Yakobson
From: gary samson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:38 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Subject: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center/Opposition to item 11-A

EXTERNAL
We strongly oppose the adoption of item 11-A on the 8/27 agenda for the reasons set forth in the opposition set forth in the letter from SMCLC.

Respectfully,
Laurie and Gary Samson
1407 Carlyle Ave 90402
Gary Samson
[email protected]
Cell: 213-598-4043
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1669 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 15 David Yakobson
From: Selena Kingsley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:37 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
I’m writing to strongly oppose any change to Bergamot Station. This belongs to the citizens and should not be taken by developers.

Selena Kingsley
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1670 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 16 David Yakobson
From: Janet Heinle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:29 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Subject: BERGAMOT

EXTERNAL
DO NOT PRIVATIZE BERGAMOT! What the heck is wrong with you! Have you not destroyed us enough! STOP!!!! Janet Heinle
1047 Lincoln
90403
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1671 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 17 David Yakobson
From: Chris Cava Preston <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:26 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing to urge you to save Bergamot Station by not deeming it as “surplus land” in our city, which will inevitably allow it to be developed.

Bergamot is a very special, unique venue and gathering space for the Santa Monica community, as well as greater Los Angeles. I can’t think of another place that serves as a cultural center in the way that Bergamot does. Currently, I can walk there and enjoy galleries, live performances, and incredible food.

Bergamot has played a more personal role in my life as well. My 24 year-old son has autism, and through a lot of hard work, he was included in an art show at a gallery in Bergamot Station and sold his first painting this year. There just aren’t a lot of galleries that would give someone like him a chance. I have also been to performances there, including a play this year written by a friend I have known for over 30 years.

Bergamot Station is worth saving, worth preserving, and I hope that you can help.

Sincerely,
Chris Cava Preston
Santa Monica resident for 35 years
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1672 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 18 David Yakobson
From: Melissa Ward <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:20 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: BERGAMOT STATION & 4th/5th and ARIZONA LAND FUTURE

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1673 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 19 Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy. Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Melissa Ward
40 Year Resident of Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1674 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:54 AM
To: Council Mailbox; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; David Martin; Douglas Sloan; Jennifer Taylor Subject: City Council 8/27/24 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th/Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
August 26, 2024
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1675 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 2 Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built. ###
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1676 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 3 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 11:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Affordable housing at Bergamot & 4th/5th/Arizona -- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
August 26, 2024

To: Mayor Brock and City Council members
From: Zina Josephs
Re: 8/27/24 agenda item 11-A -- 4th/5th & Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center -- A. Adoption of Resolution and Approval of Release of Request for Proposals for City-Owned Sites Designated for Affordable Housing Development in the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element and Declaration of Sites as "Exempt Surplus Land" in Accordance with the Surplus Land Act I urge you to delay adopting this resolution until there has been adequate community engagement on the topic.

4 th/5th & Arizona: A plan to put 300 units of affordable housing at 4th/5th & Arizona makes it appear that the city is pitting 100% affordable housing against “open space.” This ignores the open space requirement in the Surplus Lands Act.

The city should not sacrifice public open space for affordable housing -- we need both. Plus, all the market rate housing currently being built in the area increases the demand for open space.

Santa Monica has only 1.4 acres of open space per 1,000 residents, compared to more than 30 acres per 1,000 residents in both Santa Barbara and San Diego.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1677 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 1 David Yakobson
From: David Misch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:06 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
We urge you to oppose this unjustifiable land-grab at tomorrow's meeting.

Amy Gelfand
David Misch
Princeton St.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1678 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 2 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:06 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: August 27, 2024 City Council Meeting Item 11-A: Please DO NOT privatize our public land

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please do not privatize our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and the Bergamot Arts Center. We need both of these to be open space and to preserve our Bergamot Arts Center. Instead I am requesting that the City Council instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1679 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 3 David Yakobson
From: Patricia Bauer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:04 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Please do NOT privatize the city’s public land at 4th/5th and Arizona, and at Bergamot Arts Center.

Preserving public land for open space and cultural use in our city is extremely important, even as thousands of new housing units are being built in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and encouraging civic engagement.

Please: Refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and to inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.

Patricia E. Bauer
502 20th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1680 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 4 David Yakobson
From: Michelle Page <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:56 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please do not privatize Bergamot

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council:

You are sitting on a gem that is irreplaceable and that should be nurtured. It is something to be proud of and is unique to Santa Monica.

A Michelle Page
--
310.828.2628 Land line - no texting
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1681 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 5 David Yakobson
From: april aprilrocha.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:56 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1682 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 6 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:55 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11-A Stop the Steal

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council
FROM: Jeanne Laurie
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1683 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 7 housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1684 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 8 David Yakobson
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:37 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: re Council Agenda Item : 11-A

EXTERNAL
Dear Counsel members,
I am writing to urge you to keep Santa Monica's
publicly owned lands designated as public lands.

I am against changing it to 'surplus' land,
which is a dangerous proposition.

This is specifically regarding the public lands at

1. 4th/5th and Arizona

2. Bergamot Arts Center.

I hope you will listen to residents' input or put it
to a vote by the residents.

Thank you.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1685 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 9 David Yakobson
From: Curt Jordan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:25 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
City Council:

Please do not approve or pass item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts
Center.

Curtis Jordan
1328 2nd St Apt 203
Santa Monica CA 90401
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1686 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 10 David Yakobson
From: Samuel Tolkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:21 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting 8-27-2024 Agenda Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council
FROM: Samuel M. Tolkin, Planning Commissioner
I am in total agreement with the (SMCLC) letter which I have copied below. These properties before the Council in item 11-A should remain Public Land allowing for their use serving all the citizens of our city. The property at 4th/5th and Arizona, in particular, is ideal for some of the open space that our downtown will need as other denser mixed use projects will be facilitated by State law in the surround parcels.

Sincerely,
Samuel M. Tolkin, Planning Commissioner, Architect and Urban Planner.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

When, inevitably, that 100% affordable housing goal is deemed unfeasible, Council will then be able to entertain other proposals, such as requiring only 25% affordable housing, together with market rate housing and commercial revenue-generating uses, like hotels. That’s possible under another exemption of the Surplus Land Act, not Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1687 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 11 specifically cited in the staff report just as the specific 100% affordable housing exemption wasn’t specified either.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1688 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 12 David Yakobson
From: Mary Quick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:19 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Don't privatize SM's public lands

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I wholly support the statement in the Coalition for a Livable City's recent letter to the Council.

Besides the Coalitions reasoning, please consider that if we have a Harris administration in January, the federal supports for building affordable housing may make it much more possible to build affordable units on private land. Please do not make an irrevocable change now to the the two city parcels in question.

Sincerely,
Mary Quick, SM resident and homeowner
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1689 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 13 David Yakobson
From: hal lindes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:18 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
We STRONGLY oppose Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

HAL LINDES
On Aug 26, 2024, at 12:20 PM, SMCLC <[email protected]> wrote:

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

This would mean that those sites would be taken out of public use for all of us and privatized for huge private developments.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1690 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 14 If you agree with our letter, please email your respectful opinions to the Council at [email protected] by noon tomorrow, specifying Council item 11-A and cc:ing the clerk at [email protected] Thank you for your support.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1691 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 15 We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built. ###
Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors to sign up for updatesand join in our efforts.

Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City | 1112 Montana Ave. #174 | Santa Monica, CA 90403 US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Constant Contact
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1692 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 16 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:12 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council
FROM: Wendy Lamm
RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Dear City Council Members,
I agree with the following letter put forth by SMLCC, and request you follow the needs of current Santa Monica residents.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1693 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 17 And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings!
Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Sincerely,
Wendy Lamm
(Santa Monica resident since 1969, and family of residents in and around since 1914) Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1694 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 18 David Yakobson
From: Mark Ford <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:12 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members..

As a resident and home-owner in Santa Monica, I strongly oppose privating public land.. especially Bergamot — for unrealistic and irresponsbile housing development..

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1695 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 19 Thank you
Mark Ford
2623 3rd St, Santa Monica
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1696 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 20 David Yakobson
From: Alan Levenson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11A

EXTERNAL
Please do not declare Begamot and 5th and Arizona.

Thank you
Alan Levenson
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1697 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 21 David Yakobson
From: Gavin Lawrence <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:11 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am a long time resident and house owner of Santa Monica, having lived here since 1989.

I think the idea of declaring the publicly owned land at 4th/5h and Arizona and the Bergamot Arts Center as "surplus" land a very unwise move and very much not in the general public interest of Santa Monicans. Too often have the council made way for developers (one can think of the trailer parks as just one example).

The Bergamot Arts Center is a marvelous cultural hub in Santa Monica and should command the council's strong support and protection from the rush to develop Santa Monica even further.

I agree full-heartedly with the arguments of the Santa Monica Coalition for a livable City (SMLCLC). In short, this would be a terrible move.

With all due respect,
Gavin Lawrence and Caroline Hutchison,
3015, 16th Street,
Santa Monica,
CA 90405.
--
Gavin Lawrence
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1698 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 22 David Yakobson
From: nancy hyland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:01 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1699 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 23 Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy. Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Nancy Hyland
Highland Ave, Santa Monica, 90405
[email protected]
왰왱왲왳왴왵왶왷외왹왺왻왼왽왾왿욀욁욂욃욄욅
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1700 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 24 David Yakobson
From: Steve Gorlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:56 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Item 08/27 11-A - Vote No to Privatization

EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable City Council Members:

Please oppose the privatization of 4th/5th Arizona, and the privatization of Bergamot Station.

As a citizen of Santa Monica, I ask that you act in the best interest of Santa Monica and keep it a livable city by placing limits on over-development, and mega apartment projects.

Please stop the bulldozing of the character of Santa Monica by irrational and unchallenged state policies.

Sincerely,
Steven M. Gorlin
2228 3rd St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
323-839-1716
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1701 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 25 David Yakobson
From: Steven Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:55 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11-A

EXTERNAL
Hello city council, I strongly oppose 11-A. Keep public land for the public. Don’t give it to developers for more housing. It's too dense already. More people equals more homeless.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1702 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 26 David Yakobson
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:49 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica City Council item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
I'd like to express my opposition to item 11-A on tomorrow's city council meeting agenda. I do not believe the land at 4th / 5th and Arizona or the land at Bergamont Arts Center should be designated as surplus land. This designation could lead to the land being taken away from the public and instead used for private development. This land is public land and I believe it should remain a public good.

While on the surface item 11-A may seem to do something different; as SMCLC shows, this is a slippery slope to privatizing the land without any public input.

The following is what SMCLC has said and I agree with it:
"Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

That’s possible under another exemption of the Surplus Land Act, not specifically cited in the staff report just as the specific 100% affordable housing exemption wasn’t specified either.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Regards,
Will
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1703 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 27 David Yakobson
From: Gina Simas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:41 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center

EXTERNAL
Dear Members,
Please do not allow Bergamot to be wiped out as a renowned cultural center. We go there regularly and value this part of our community. It is so disappointing to continue watching public lands and open space being swallowed by large developments--developments of which most residents in the community overwhelmingly oppose. Please remember that you serve residents who deserve to have open and public spaces. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Gina Simas
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1704 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 28 David Yakobson
From: Alex Dilks Pandola <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:34 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Item 11-A

EXTERNAL
TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Dilks Pandola, Santa Monica homeowner and resident for 12 years RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center When I moved to Santa Monica 12 years ago from Philadelphia, PA it was because I saw it as an incredible place where I could raise my family.

For the last 12 years we've enjoyed so many of the wonderful things Santa Monica has to offer families.

Unfortunately, a lot of those places have been compromised and others are being threatened. I do not want public land in Santa Monica sacrificed for private developments.

The entire city from Lincoln to Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvd. is being developed at rapid speed. It is more important than ever that we protect public land- like Bergamot Arts Center and 4th/5th Arizona.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

Sincerely,
Alex Dilks Pandola
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1705 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 29 David Yakobson
From: Sharon Toriello <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:29 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Council item 11-A and cc:ing the clerk at [email protected] no to declaring both as surplus land.
sharon toriello
[email protected]
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1706 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 30 David Yakobson
From: R G <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11-A

EXTERNAL
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SMC LC-headerT.gif
August 26, 2024
Dear Supporter of SMCLC
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for noncultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1707 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 31 Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy. Preserving public land for open space in a rapidly densifying downtown is extremely important. Even more so now as thousands of new housing units are being built throughout Santa Monica in an attempt to reach state housing goals. Good planning recognizes that open spaces complement dense housing by fostering community and civic engagement.

We urge the Council to refuse to declare either site “surplus” or exempt from the SLA, and to instead instruct staff to report on the current status of housing projects citywide, and inventory other sites that legitimately are of a suitable size to actually enable 100% affordable housing projects to be built.
###
Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors to sign up for updates and join in our efforts.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1708 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 32 David Yakobson
From: phil traill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:28 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council item 11-A

EXTERNAL
Hi
Please don’t privatise our land at 4th/5th and Arizona, and the Bergamot Arts Center.

I agree 100% with the letter below from the SMCLC.

Thanks,
Phil Traill
2404 CLOVERFIELD BLVD, Santa Monica 90405
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) RE: City Council 8/27 item 11-A: Privatizing our Public Land at 4th/5th and Arizona and Bergamot Arts Center
Residents have told the City repeatedly that they do not want to see their public land sacrificed for private developments. That was the case at 4th/5th and Arizona when the City was negotiating the Plaza project, and more recently when residents came together to save the Civic Auditorium after the Council declared it “surplus land,” paving the way for its sale for non-cultural uses.

But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings!
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1709 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 33 Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Pitting open space and cultural arts against housing or mixed-use developments is poor public policy.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1710 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 34 David Yakobson
From: Matheson, Suzanne <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:26 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; Matheson, Suzanne; Suzanne Matheson (Unit #9) Subject: URGENT ACTION: ATTENTION TO CITY Council -- noon tomorrow -- DO NOT privatize our public land!
Importance: High

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1711 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 35 But Council is being told by staff that it can claim an exemption and bypass the Surplus Land Act (SLA) if it requests bids for 100% affordable housing on those sites.

And these mega projects, which would gut Bergamot as a world-renowned cultural center and eliminate irreplaceable open space at 4th/5th and Arizona, could be processed administratively with no public hearings! Our publicly owned land could be given away without ANY public input.

Proceeding down this path would be a fundamental failure of local government.

Thank you.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1712 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 36 Suzanne Matheson
1024 5th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403

CONCERNED CITIZEN
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1713 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) 4 Bergamot Station Arts Center: A plan to put 700 units of affordable housing in the Bergamot Arts Center would spell “the end” for this amazing collection of art galleries, which is a drawing card for tourists, as well as a cultural benefit for residents.

Established in 1994, Bergamot describes itself as “the largest art gallery and cultural complex on the West Coast” and plans to celebrate its 30th anniversary on September 7th. https://bergamotstation.com/ -- September 7th event schedule: https://bergamotstation.com/bergamot30th-anniversary Again, please delay this decision in order to allow for a robust public engagement process.

Item 11-A
August 27, 2024
Item 11-A
August 27, 2024

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1714 Attachment: Written Comments (6233 : City-Owned Sites for AH (Next RFP & Framework)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 27, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Recommendation to accept Ashley Oelsen's resignation from the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy.

Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Resignation Email

16.A
Packet Pg. 1715
From: Ashley Oelsen
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 11:38 AM
To: Maria Dacanay-Wisner <[email protected]> Cc: Ashley Oelsen <[email protected]>; Joshua Carvalho <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Your Appointment to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice & the Environment

EXTERNAL
Dear Maria,
I am writing to formally resign from my position as Chair of the City of Santa Monica Clean Oceans and Beaches Measure V Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, effective today. It has been a privilege to serve on this committee, and I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to contribute to our community's efforts.

The experiences and insights gained during this period have been invaluable, and I am proud of the progress we have achieved together.

While I am stepping down from this role, I am pleased to accept the nomination to the Commission on Environmental Justice, Sustainability, and Environment. I look forward to continuing my service to the City of Santa Monica in this new capacity and contributing to broader environmental initiatives that address pressing issues of sustainability and justice.

I want to extend my sincere gratitude to my fellow committee members, city staff, and the community for their support and collaboration. I am confident that the Clean Oceans and Beaches Measure V Oversight Committee will continue to make significant strides.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to serve, and I look forward to continuing our collective efforts in my new role.

Warm regards,
Ashley Oelsen

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1716 Attachment: Resignation Email (6554 : Resignation: Clean Beaches - A. Oelsen (2 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 27, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Vice Mayor Negrete and Councilmember Davis that the City Council support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure QS.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach
B. 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach
C. Written Comments

16.B
Packet Pg. 1717
SFID No. 1 - Santa Monica Schools - $495M

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SANTA

MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ORDERING AN
ELECTION IN SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 (SANTA MONICA SCHOOLS) TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF

SCHOOL BONDS, ESTABLISHING SPECIFICATIONS OF THE

ELECTION ORDER, AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION WITH
OTHER ELECTIONS OCCURRING ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024
WHEREAS, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (the “District”) of Los Angeles County, State of California, is committed to providing quality education to all of its students; and
WHEREAS, the District has undertaken facilities assessments and planning as part of its long-term facilities planning; and
WHEREAS, the District’s school facilities continue to be in need of repairs, upgrades, modernization, renovation, construction, and health and safety improvements in order to provide the education District students deserve in a safe, healthy and modern environment; and
WHEREAS, funding provided by the State of California is insufficient to provide the funding needed to address the District’s facility needs, and as such a local funding source is needed to enable the District to provide said facilities for its present and future students; and
WHEREAS, following public notice, at a meeting of the Board of Education of the District (the “Board”) on June 14, 2018, the District formed its School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (Santa Monica Schools) (“SFID No. 1”) pursuant to California Education Code 15300 and following (the “SFID Law”) for the purpose of forming a sub-territory within the District composed of the property in the District in the portion of the District serving Santa Monica area students to enable the District to conduct a general obligation bond election or elections within said SFID No. 1 and, if successful, issue general obligation bonds to finance voter-approved projects within SFID 1; and
WHEREAS, under the SFID Law, following formation of a school facilities improvement district, the governing board may provide for and call a bond election within the school facilities improvement district pursuant to Education Code Section 15264 and following for the purpose of seeking bond authorization for facilities improvements which bonds will be secured by property taxes levied exclusively within the boundaries of said school facilities improvement district; and
WHEREAS, by forming two separate and distinct taxing areas, known as SFID No. 1 and SFID No. 2, respectively, which reflect the possible future reorganization of the District into the Santa Monica area and the Malibu area, the Board has taken steps to coordinate the financing of facilities improvements with bonds that are and will be supported by the tax base that directly benefits from those improvements; and

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1718 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement -2-
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is necessary to address the facilities needs that exist within SFID No. 1 for the purposes, among others, of ensuring that its facilities in SFID No. 1 are upgraded, repaired, improved, constructed and equipped; and WHEREAS, Article XIIIA of the California Constitution (“Article XIIIA”) allows for the levy of ad valorem property taxes for the payment of bonded indebtedness of a school district, community college district or county office of education approved by at least 55 percent of the voters voting on such proposition; and
WHEREAS, in the judgment of the Board, it is advisable to call an election pursuant to SFID Law and the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bond Act of 2000, being California Education Code Section 15264 and following (the “Act”) to submit to the electors of SFID No. 1 the question whether bonds of the District shall be issued and sold with respect to SFID No. 1 pursuant to the authority of Article XVI Section 18 of the California Constitution and Article XIIIA (together with SFID Law and the Act, the “Law”) for the purposes authorized by the Law and as described in Appendix A hereto (the “Full Text of Bond Measure”), all of which purposes are deemed to benefit the land within SFID No. 1; and
WHEREAS, said local bond measure will include mandatory taxpayer protections, including an independent citizens’ oversight committee, mandatory annual audits to ensure funds are spent as promised, and require that proceeds only be spent on authorized projects and related costs and not on salaries or employee pensions; and WHEREAS, under the Act, the election may be ordered at a primary or general election, a regularly scheduled local election at which all of the electors of the District are entitled to vote, or a statewide special election, upon a two-thirds vote of the Board; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to call an election in SFID No. 1 pursuant to the Law on November 5, 2024, which is the date of the statewide general election, and pursuant to Education Code Section 15121 and Elections Code Section 10400 and following, to request consolidation with any and all other elections held in the District on such date, and to request the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters (the “County Registrar”) to perform election services for the District, as the territory of SFID No 1 is entirely within Los Angeles County; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the calling of a bond election and in accordance with Education Code Section 15100 subparagraph (c), the Board has obtained reasonable and informed projections of assessed property valuations that take into consideration projections of assessed property valuations made by the County assessor, if any; and WHEREAS, pursuant to federal tax law, specifically United States Income Tax Regulations Section 1.150-2, the Board desires to declare its official intention at this time that if the measure submitted to voters hereunder is successful and bonds are issued pursuant to such measure, that it intends to reimburse from said bond proceeds expenditures (if any) made by the District prior to the date of issuance of said bonds for the purposes described in the measure;

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1719 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement -3-
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SANTA MONICAMALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Call for Election. The Board hereby orders an election and submits to the electors within the boundaries of SFID No. 1 the question of whether general obligation bonds of the District shall be issued and sold with respect to SFID No. 1 in the maximum principal amount of $495,000,000 for the purposes described in the ballot measure approved under Section 4 and attached hereto as Appendix A (Full Text) and Appendix B (Abbreviated Text), and paying all costs incident thereto. This Resolution constitutes the order of the District to call such election and shall constitute the “specifications of the election order” pursuant to Education Code Section 5322.

Section 3. Election Date; Boundary Map. The date of the election shall be November 5, 2024, and such bond election shall be held solely within the boundaries of SFID No. 1. The District Superintendent is authorized to provide the boundary map of SFID No. 1 and any other required documentation or directions to the County Registrar to facilitate the lawful conduct of the election within the boundaries of SFID No. 1.

Section 4. Purpose of Election; Ballot Measure. The purpose of the election shall be for the voters in SFID No. 1 to vote on a bond measure, a full copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix A and marked “Appendix A” (the “Full Text of the Measure”), containing the question of whether the District shall issue general obligation bonds with respect to SFID No. 1 for the purposes stated therein, together with the accountability requirements of Article XIIIA and the requirements of Section 15272 of the Act. The Full Text of the Measure, which commences with the heading “FULL TEXT OF BOND MEASURE” and includes all of the text thereafter as delineated on Appendix A, shall be printed in the voter information pamphlet provided to voters, with such measure designation as is assigned to the measure by the County elections official. The measure name shall be the “Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure”.

As required by Education Code Section 5322 and 15122 and Elections Code Section 13247, and in accordance with Elections Code Section 13119, the abbreviated form of the measure to appear on the ballot is attached hereto as Appendix B and is marked as “Appendix B – Abbreviated Form of Bond Measure.” The President of the Board and the Superintendent are hereby separately authorized and directed by the Board to make any changes to the text of the measure appearing on Appendix A and Appendix B hereto to conform to any requirements of the Law, applicable provisions of the Elections Code, the County Registrar or upon the advice of the District’s legal counsel, by written direction provided to the County Registrar.

Section 5. Authority for Election; Vote Requirement. The authority for ordering the election is contained in Section 15340 et seq. and Section 15300 et. seq. of the Education Code, Section 15264 et. seq. of the Education Code, Article XVI Section 18(b) of the California Constitution and paragraph (b) subsection (3) of Article XIIIA. The authority for the specification of this election order is contained in Section 5322 of the Education Code. The vote passage requirement for the measure is least 55 percent of the voters voting on the measure.

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1720 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement -4-
Section 6. Proceeds for School Facilities Projects. The Board certifies that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIII A, Section 1(b)(3) as further specified in Appendix A, and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses. Further, as required by Article XIIIA, the Board hereby certifies that it has evaluated safety, class size and information technology needs in developing the list of school facilities projects set forth in Appendix A.

Section 7. Covenants of the Board upon Approval of the Bonds by the Electorate; Accountability Measures. As required by Article XIIIA, Section 15278 of the Act, and Government Code Section 53410, in the event 55 percent of the voters voting in the District approve of the Bonds, the Board shall:
(a) conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the projects listed in Appendix A;
(b) conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school facilities projects listed in Appendix A; (c) establish and appoint members to an independent citizens’ oversight committee in accordance with Sections 15278, 15280, and 15282 of the Act;
(d) apply the Bond proceeds only to the specific purposes stated in the ballot proposition;
(e) cause the creation of accounts into which bond proceeds shall be deposited; and
(f) cause the preparation of an annual report pursuant to Government Code Sections 53410 and 53411.

Section 8. State Matching Funds. The Board hereby finds that some of the projects identified on the Full Text of Measure may require state matching funds for completion. As such, the statement required by Education Code Section 15122.5 has been included in the Full Text of Measure.

Section 9. Delivery of this Resolution. The Clerk or Secretary of the Board is hereby directed to send a copy of this Resolution to (1) the County Registrar, and (2) the Los Angeles County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (the “Clerk of the Board”) for purposes of consolidation pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403. The Resolution shall be received by the County Registrar and the Clerk of the Board no later than 88 days prior to the election date, unless otherwise permitted by law.

The County Registrar is hereby requested to print the full text of the ballot measure in the ballot materials as it appears on Appendix A hereto and to provide all required notices of the election and other notices related thereto.

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1721 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement -5-
Section 10. Consolidation of Election; Request to Provide Services. The County Registrar and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors are hereby requested to consolidate the election ordered hereby with any and all other elections to be held on November 5, 2024 within the District.

Pursuant to Section 5303 of the Education Code and Section 10002 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County is requested to permit the County Registrar to render all services specified by Section 10418 of the Elections Code and any other provisions of law relating to the election, for which services the District agrees to reimburse Los Angeles County in full upon presentation of a bill from the County, such services to include the publication of a formal Notice of School Bond Election and the mailing of the sample ballot and tax rate statement (described in Section 9401 of the Elections Code).

Section 11. Approval of Tax Rate Statement. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9400 and following including as amended by SB 798 (chaptered October 10, 2023 and effective January 1, 2024), a tax rate statement has been prepared in the form attached hereto as Appendix C, which form of Tax Rate Statement is hereby approved for inclusion in the sample ballot. The President of the Board, the Superintendent, or any written designee of the foregoing, are hereby separately authorized and directed to execute the tax rate statement, and to file said Statement with the County Registrar, in accordance with Section 9 hereof.

Section 12. Ballot Arguments. As provided in Elections Code Section 9501, the Board or any member or members of the Board, are hereby authorized to (but not required nor directed to) act as an author and signatory of any ballot argument prepared in connection with the election, including a rebuttal argument, each of which if filed shall be filed within the time frame established by the County Registrar.

Section 13. Maturity Limit of Bonds. The Bonds may be issued in one or more series by the District from time to time, and each series of Bonds shall mature not more than the legal limit at the time of such issuance thereof. The Bonds shall be issued under the Act, under the provisions of Section 53506 et seq. of the California Government Code, or under any other provision of law authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds by school districts.

Section 14. Estimates Included in Ballot Materials. The measure authorized by this Resolution includes information presented to voters with respect to the estimated amount of money required to repay issued bonds, the estimated rate of the approved tax per $100,000 or per $100 of assessed valuation (ad valorem tax), and the estimated duration through which the proposed tax supporting bond repayment will be levied and collected, among others. Each of the estimates relating to the bonds provided herein and in the appendices hereto have been provided by the District in good faith based upon information currently available to the District, but depend on numerous variables which are subject to variation and change over the term of the District’s overall facilities and bond financing plan. Such estimates and approximations are not intended by the Board and shall not be interpreted or construed as additional restrictions on the District’s bond program, bond issuances and related tax rate, and, other than the total principal amount of bonds authorized to be issued by the bond measure, do not represent legal maximums or additional limitations beyond applicable legal requirements.

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1722 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement -6-
Finally, the abbreviated and condensed statement of the bond measure set forth in Appendix B, limited by State law to 75 words or less, does not limit the scope and broader and more complete meaning provided in the Full Text of Bond Measure, set forth in Appendix A.

Section 15. Reimbursement. Pursuant to United States Income Tax Regulations Section 1.150-2, the District hereby declares that if the measure called hereby is approved by District voters, it may (i) pay certain costs of the projects listed in Appendix A prior to the date of issuance of bonds and, in such case, (ii) intends to use a portion of the proceeds of bonds for reimbursement of said expenditures for the projects that are paid before the date of issuance of bonds.

Section 16. Official Actions. The President of the Board and the Superintendent are hereby separately authorized and directed to execute and deliver to County officials any directions, requisitions or other writings, and to make any changes to the texts of the measure as described herein and in the tax rate statement, to conform to any legal requirements or the County Registrar, in order to cause the election to be held and conducted in the Improvement District.

Section 17. Appendices a Part of this Resolution. Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C hereto are deemed a part of and incorporated in full in the body of this Resolution.

Section 18. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect on and after its adoption.
* * * * * * * *

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1723 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1724
Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-1

APPENDIX A

FULL TEXT OF MEASURE

THE FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE TO BE PRINTED IN THE INFORMATION GUIDE BEGINS BELOW THE LINE. THE REGISTRAR IS REQUESTED TO INPUT THE

ASSIGNED MEASURE LETTER WHERE APPROPRIATE
____________________________

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
(Santa Monica Schools)

GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE ___
This measure may be known as the “Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure” or “Measure _____”.

BOND AUTHORIZATION
By approval of this measure by at least 55 percent of the registered voters voting on the measure, Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (the “District”) will be authorized to issue and sell bonds with respect to its School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 (Santa Monica Schools) (“SFID No. 1”) in the principal amount of up to $495 million at interest rates not to exceed legal limits and to provide financing for the specific types of school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List described below, subject to all the accountability requirements specified below.

ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS
The provisions in this section are specifically included in this measure in order that the voters and taxpayers in SFID No. 1 may be assured that their money will be spent wisely.

Expenditures to address specific facilities needs of SFID No. 1 will be in compliance with the requirements of Article XIIIA, Section 1(b)(3), of the State Constitution and the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act of 2000 (codified at Education Code Sections 15264 and following.)
Evaluation of Needs. The Board hereby certifies that it has evaluated safety, class size reduction, enrollment growth, and information technology needs in developing the Bond Project List shown below.

Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee. Following approval of this measure, the Board will establish an Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee, under Education Code Sections 15278 and following, to ensure bond proceeds are expended only on the types of school facilities projects listed below. The committee will be established within 60 days of the date when the results of the election appear in the minutes of the Board.

Performance Audits. The Board will conduct annual, independent performance audits to ensure that the bond proceeds have been expended only on the school facilities projects listed below.

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1725 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-2
Financial Audits. The Board will conduct annual, independent financial audits of the bond proceeds until all of those proceeds have been spent for the types of school facilities projects listed below.

Government Code Accountability Requirements. As required by Section 53410 of the Government Code, (1) the specific purpose of the bonds is set forth in this Full Text of the Measure, (2) the proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be used only for the purposes specified in this measure, and not for any other purpose, (3) the proceeds of the bonds, when and if issued, will be deposited into a building fund to be held by the Los Angeles County Treasurer, as required by the California Education Code, and (4) the Superintendent of the District shall cause an annual report to be filed with the Board of Education of the District not later than January 1 of each year, which report shall contain pertinent information regarding the amount of funds collected and expended, as well as the status of the projects listed in this measure, as required by Sections 53410 and 53411 of the Government Code.

NO TEACHER OR ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES
Proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this measure shall be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIII A, Section 1(b)(3), those being for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, and the acquisition or lease of school facilities, and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses.

STATE MATCHING FUNDS
The following statement is included in this measure pursuant to Education Code Section 15122.5: Approval of this measure does not guarantee that the proposed project or projects that are the subject of bonds under this measure will be funded beyond the local revenues generated by this measure. The District's proposal for the project or projects described below may assume the receipt of matching state funds, which, if available, could be subject to appropriation by the Legislature or approval of a statewide bond measure.

INFORMATION ABOUT ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS INCLUDED IN BALLOT Voters are informed that any estimates or projections in the bond measure or ballot materials, including relating to estimated rates of ad valorem property taxes, the duration of issued bonds and related levies and collections of ad valorem property taxes are provided as informational only. Such amounts are estimates and are not maximum amounts or limitations on the terms of the bonds, the rate or the duration of the tax supporting repayment of issued bonds. Such estimates depend on numerous variables which are subject to variation and change over the term of the District’s overall facilities and bond financing plan, including but not limited to the amount of bonds issued and outstanding at any one time, the interest rates applicable to issued bonds, market conditions at the time of sale of the bonds, when bonds mature, timing of project needs and changes in assessed valuations in the District. As such, while such estimates and approximations are provided based on information currently available to the District and its current expectations, such estimates and approximations are not limitations and are not binding upon the District. In addition, the abbreviated and condensed statement of the

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1726 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-3
bond measure presented to voters which is subject to a word count limitation of not to exceed 75 words imposed by State law does not limit the scope and complete meaning of the measure provided in this Full Text of Bond Measure and related ballot materials.

BOND PROJECT LIST
Scope of Projects. Bond proceeds will be expended on the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District with respect to SFID No. 1, including furnishing and equipping, and the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries or other school operating expenses, all in compliance with California Constitution Article XIIIA, Section 1(b)(3).

This measure authorizes bond projects to be undertaken at all current and future education, support and other ancillary sites and annexes within SFID No. 1, including bond projects at support sites providing services to facilities within SFID No. 1.

School Facility Project List. The items presented on the following list are the types of projects authorized to be financed with voter-approved bond proceeds. Specific examples which follow the broader types of authorized projects are not intended to limit those broader types of projects described and authorized by this measure. The types of projects authorized to be undertaken are:

1. School Safety and Security Upgrades. Improvements, upgrades and/or repairs or replacements of District systems and facilities to achieve a safe, secure and accessible learning environment. Authorized projects include:
• Manage and remove potential physical hazards, including improving access, fire safety, seismic concerns, and other threats to life and safety • Remove and abatement of environmental hazards, including lead, asbestos, PCBs, mold and other toxins
• Improve indoor air quality to reduce environmental hazards and reduce the potential of the spread of airborne illnesses
• Practice crime prevention through environmental design making schools safer through natural surveillance, natural access, and territoriality • Install security and access control systems including surveillance systems, fire alarms, sprinkler systems, alarm systems, key/lock systems, communication systems and public address systems
• Update security/perimeter fencing and gates, security cameras, signage and site lighting
• Replace/repair of damaged or non-compliant playground equipment • Resurface playgrounds, walkways and parking areas
• Ensure safe and barrier-free ADA compliant access at all facilities • Upgrade pedestrian access, drop off/pick up areas, varied mobility entry, bicycle storage, and reduce vehicle/student incursions

2. Repairing, upgrading, modernizing and replacing aging school facilities and buildings in the Santa Monica Area including at Elementary, Middle and High School sites. Upgrades, repairs, renovations and/or replacements, new construction

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1727 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-4
and expansion/reconfiguration to facilities, buildings and building systems to address deteriorating, aging, failed or failing facilities, buildings, systems and/or equipment, increase energy efficiency and/or air quality, bring all facilities and systems into current code compliance and provide sufficient modern school facilities to serve students and support all programs. Authorized projects include:
• Perform structural repairs and seismic upgrades, replacement of leaky/aging roofing, replacement of windows, doors and building finish materials • Modernize interior finishes: paint, ceiling and wall finishes, window coverings, flooring and casework
• Update heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and other indoor air quality improvements
• Repair inefficient and potentially faulty electrical systems • Repair or replace infrastructure including plumbing/water, sewer, gas and related utility systems.
• Replace outdated electrical systems and wiring, including lighting, power distribution and control systems and other renewable energy systems such as wind turbines, solar panels and microgrids
• Replace plumbing including fixtures and repairs to sewer and water distribution systems
• Repair, modernize, replace or add bathrooms , including modernizing/constructing additional bathrooms to be compliant with new accessibility requirements
• Upgrade, modernize, renovate, replace, equip and furnish District classrooms, academies, facilities for fine and performing arts, and other facilities including kitchens, cafeterias, and multi-purpose rooms
• Construct or reconfigure and modernize facilities to provide spaces supporting the needs of all students such as counselling spaces, tutoring spaces and other facilities supporting students that may be struggling academically or emotionally • Replace of temporary and aging portable classrooms with permanent or upgraded facilities
• Expand and construct facilities for early childhood learning, including preschool, kindergarten and the newly expanded, universal transitional kindergarten • Modernize libraries and other needed learning support facilities • Renovate and/or construct new educational and/or support facilities to replace and/or expand facilities at existing, adjacent or new sites, as the Board of Education may determine is necessary to improve the delivery of the District’s educational programs and/or prevent overcrowding within the School Facilities Improvement District
• Preserve Historic Resources through renovation and adaptive reuse • Continue upgrading and reconstructing Santa Monica High School

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1728 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-5
• Infrastructure such as wiring, switches, routers and wireless access infrastructure • Computers, devices and other modern instructional equipment and technology • Hardware and software and back-up and recovery and security technologies • Science and laboratory modernization, including science equipment and instructional tools
• Project-based, innovation labs and maker space facilities, learning materials and equipment, including specialized career technology educational tools and materials

4. Renovations, upgrades and improvements to school sites/grounds and physical education/athletic facilities. Repair, upgrade, renovate and improve school grounds, play fields and physical education facilities, including equipment. Authorized projects include:
• Restore and upgrade play fields and playgrounds, including play/fitness equipment and hardtop and asphalt surfaces
• Repair, upgrade, replace and/or resurface, and equip physical education and athletic facilities, including outdoor tracks, gymnasiums, aquatics, locker rooms, bathrooms and all related facilities
• Install shade structures, traffic control devices, lighting and/or bleachers and other seating
• Mobility improvements, including drop off/pick up areas, circulation elements, safety/wayfinding/identity signage, and parking facility improvements, including resurfacing, expansion, signage and lighting
• Install cost-effective, efficient landscaping and irrigation systems, including drought resistant landscaping

5. Additional facilities to support the operation of the Santa Monica – Malibu Unified School District in SFID No. 1 (Santa Monica Schools). To minimize faculty and staff attrition due to the high cost of housing in Santa Monica, funds may be used to explore and investigate the feasibility of workforce housing solutions.

Furnishing and Equipping; Incidental Expenses. Each of the bond projects described in this Bond Project List include the costs of furnishing and equipping facilities throughout SFID No. 1, and all costs which are incidental but directly related to the types of projects described above.

Examples of incidental costs include, but are not limited to: costs of design, engineering, architect including DSA fees, legal and other professional and consultant services including fees relating to litigation, facilities assessments, inspections, site preparation, utilities, landscaping, construction management by third parties, general contractors and/or District personnel, and other planning and permitting, environmental review, rezoning and municipal license fees if any, legal, accounting and similar costs; independent annual financial and performance audits; a customary construction contingency; demolition and disposal of existing structures; the costs of interim housing and storage during construction including relocation and construction costs incurred relating to interim facilities; rental or construction of storage facilities and other space on an interim basis for materials and other equipment and furnishings displaced during construction; costs of relocating facilities and equipment as needed in connection with the projects; interim classrooms and facilities for students, administrators, and school

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1729 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-6
functions, including modular facilities; all federal, state and locally-mandated safety upgrades; the costs of new or expanded infrastructure; the cost of providing parking and other facilities to accommodate new or expanded facilities; addressing any unforeseen conditions revealed by construction/modernization and other necessary improvements required to comply with existing building codes, including the Field Act; complying with all access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws and regulations; costs of the election including other costs arising directly from the bond measure; litigation costs; project construction oversight, management and administration during the duration of such projects including by District personnel, and bond issuance costs.

Alternations to Scope and Nature; New Construction. The School Board is hereby authorized to alter the scope and nature of any of the specific projects described above as required or recommended by new conditions, discoveries or any other factors including economic factors and/or factors relating to the most effective delivery of the District’s educational programs that may become apparent during the course of facilities planning, design and construction. In the event that the School Board determines that a modernization or renovation project is in the best interests of the District and it students to be undertaken as new construction based on cost or safety considerations, this bond measure authorizes said project to be undertaken in whole or in part as new construction, including land acquisition, relocation and construction at a new or alternative site, and/or demolition and reconstruction and/or repurposing on the original site, including an expanded site, and all costs relating thereto. In addition, to accomplish any of the projects included on the above list, this measure authorizes the acquisition of real property, including necessary rights of ways or other real property interests.

Interim Financing Included; Joint Use Projects Authorized. In addition, authorized projects include reimbursements for paid project costs and paying and/or prepaying interim or previously obtained financing for the projects included on the project list, such as bond anticipation notes or lease financings including certificates of participation relating to facilities projects and/or equipment previously financed. Finally, projects on this list may be undertaken and used as joint use projects with other public agencies.

Unforeseen Circumstances; Limited Funding Sources. Many factors may impact the District’s ability to address each of the projects described herein, including but not limited to construction costs, supply chain issues which can cause project delays, labor shortages, unknown environmental factors or site conditions, overall facilities needs and related costs which exceed available bond funding sources, among others. The District is unable to anticipate all circumstances which may prevent some of the projects that have been listed above from being undertaken or completed. Approval of the District’s bond measure does not guarantee that all of the identified projects within the Bond Project List will be funded beyond what can be completed with funds generated by this bond measure.

The District plans to pursue additional funding such as State matching funds, if available, to address its facilities needs.

Project List Not in Order of Priority; Board Determines Prioritization. The order in which projects are listed in the foregoing Bond Project List does not suggest an order of priority.

Project prioritization is vested in and will be determined by the District Board.

Interpretation. The terms of this Bond Measure and the words used in the Bond Project List shall be interpreted broadly to effect the purpose of providing broad and clear authority

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1730 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-7
for the officers and employees of the District to provide for the school facilities projects the District proposes to finance with the proceeds of the sale of bonds authorized by this proposition within the authority provided by law, including Article XIIIA, Section 1(b)(3) of the California Constitution, Education Code Section 15000 et seq. and the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act of 2000. Words used in the Project List such as repair, improve, upgrade, expand, modernize, renovate, and reconfigure are used to describe school facilities projects in plain English but are not intended to expand the nature of such projects beyond what is authorized by law. The Bond Project List does not authorize, and shall not be interpreted to authorize, the expenditure of proceeds of the sale of bonds authorized by this measure for current maintenance, operation or repairs.

Severability. The District Board hereby declares, and the voters by approving this Bond Measure concur, that every section and part of this bond proposition has independent value, and the District Board and the voters would have adopted each provision hereof regardless of every other provision hereof. Upon approval of this measure by the voters, should any part be found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid for any reason, all remaining parts hereof shall remain in full force and effect to the fullest extent allowed by law, and to this end the provisions of this bond measure are severable. ______________________________________
The Full Text of Measure ends above the line.

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1731 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement B-1

APPENDIX B

ABBREVIATED FORM OF BOND MEASURE
(Ballot Label)

SANTA MONICA SCHOOLS REPAIR/IMPROVEMENT BOND
MEASURE: To repair/replace leaky school roofs, outdated wiring/ plumbing; remove hazardous materials; upgrade classrooms, labs, instructional technology supporting science, math, engineering; improve education for struggling students; and increase student/ school safety; shall Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s measure for School Facilities Improvement District No.1 (Santa Monica Schools) be adopted authorizing $495,000,000 of bonds at legal interest rates, levying 3¢ per $100 assessed value (raising $28 million annually) while bonds are outstanding, with citizens' oversight, annual audits, and all funds for Santa Monica schools only?
Bonds—Yes Bonds—No

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1732 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement C-1

APPENDIX C
The text of the Tax Rate Statement to be printed in the election material begins below the following line.
______________________________________

TAX RATE STATEMENT

REGARDING PROPOSED
$495 MILLION

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 (SANTA MONICA SCHOOLS)

GENERAL OBLIGTION BONDS
An election will be held in School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 (Santa Monica Schools) (the “Improvement District”) of Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (the “District”) on November 5, 2024, to authorize the sale of up to $495 million in bonds to finance school facilities improvements in the Improvement District as described in the measure. If such bonds are authorized and sold, principal and interest on the bonds will be payable only from the proceeds of ad valorem tax levies made upon the taxable property in the Improvement District. The following information is provided in compliance with Sections 9400-9404 of the Elections Code of the State of California. Such information is based upon the best estimates and projections presently available from official sources, upon experience within the Improvement District, and other demonstrable factors.

Based upon the foregoing and projections of the Improvement District’s assessed valuation, the following information is provided:

1. The best estimate of the average annual tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue over the entire duration of the bond debt service, based on a projection of assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is $28.70 per $100,000 of assessed value (2.870¢ per $100 assessed value). The final fiscal year in which the tax is anticipated to be collected is 2056-57.

2. The best estimate of the highest tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue, based on a projection of assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is $29.95 per $100,000 of assessed value (2.995¢ per $100 assessed value). It is estimated that such rate would be levied starting in fiscal years 2025-26 through 2051-52.

3. The best estimate of the total debt service, including the principal and interest, that would be required to be repaid if all the bonds are issued and sold is approximately $879,372,000.

Voters should note the estimated tax rate is based on the assessed value (not market value) of taxable property on Los Angeles County’s official tax rolls. Property owners should consult their own property tax bills and tax advisors to determine their property’s assessed value and any applicable tax exemptions.

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1733 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1734
Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement SFID No. 2 - Malibu Schools - $395M

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SANTA

MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ORDERING AN
ELECTION IN SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 (MALIBU SCHOOLS) TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF SCHOOL

BONDS, ESTABLISHING SPECIFICATIONS OF THE ELECTION

ORDER, AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION WITH OTHER
ELECTIONS OCCURRING ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024
WHEREAS, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (the “District”) of Los Angeles County, State of California, is committed to providing quality education to all of its students; and
WHEREAS, the District has undertaken facilities assessments and planning as part of its long-term facilities planning; and
WHEREAS, the District’s school facilities continue to be in need of repairs, upgrades, modernization, renovation, construction, and health and safety improvements in order to provide the education District students deserve in a safe, healthy and modern environment; and
WHEREAS, funding provided by the State of California is insufficient to provide the funding needed to address the District’s facility needs, and as such a local funding source is needed to enable the District to provide said facilities for its present and future students; and
WHEREAS, following public notice, at a meeting of the Board of Education of the District (the “Board”) on June 14, 2018, the District formed its School Facilities Improvement District No. 2 of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (Malibu Schools) (“SFID No. 2”) pursuant to California Education Code 15300 and following (the “SFID Law”) for the purpose of forming a sub-territory within the District composed of the property in the District in the portion of the District serving Malibu area students to enable the District to conduct a general obligation bond election or elections within said SFID No. 2 and, if successful, issue general obligation bonds to finance voter-approved projects within SFID 2; and
WHEREAS, under the SFID Law, following formation of a school facilities improvement district, the governing board may provide for and call a bond election within the school facilities improvement district pursuant to Education Code Section 15264 and following for the purpose of seeking bond authorization for facilities improvements which bonds will be secured by property taxes levied exclusively within the boundaries of said school facilities improvement district; and
WHEREAS, by forming two separate and distinct taxing areas, known as SFID No. 1 and SFID No. 2, respectively, which reflect the possible future reorganization of the District into the Santa Monica area and the Malibu area, the Board has taken steps to coordinate the financing of facilities improvements with bonds that are and will be supported by the tax base that directly benefits from those improvements; and

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1735 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement -2-
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is necessary to address the facilities needs that exist within SFID No. 2 for the purposes, among others, of ensuring that its facilities in SFID No. 2 are upgraded, repaired, improved, constructed and equipped; and WHEREAS, Article XIIIA of the California Constitution (“Article XIIIA”) allows for the levy of ad valorem property taxes for the payment of bonded indebtedness of a school district, community college district or county office of education approved by at least 55 percent of the voters voting on such proposition; and
WHEREAS, upon the passage of Proposition 39, the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bond Act of 2000, being California Education Code Section 15264 and following (the “Act”), became operative; and
WHEREAS, in the judgment of the Board, it is advisable to call an election pursuant to SFID Law and the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bond Act of 2000, being California Education Code Section 15264 and following (the “Act”) to submit to the electors of SFID No. 2 the question whether bonds of the District shall be issued and sold with respect to SFID No. 2 pursuant to the authority of Article XVI Section 18 of the California Constitution and Article XIIIA (together with SFID Law and the Act, the “Law”) for the purposes authorized by the Law and as described in Appendix A hereto (the “Full Text of Bond Measure”), all of which purposes are deemed to benefit the land within SFID No. 2; and
WHEREAS, said local bond measure will include mandatory taxpayer protections, including an independent citizens’ oversight committee, mandatory annual audits to ensure funds are spent as promised, and require that proceeds only be spent on authorized projects and related costs and not on salaries or employee pensions; and WHEREAS, under the Act, the election may be ordered at a primary or general election, a regularly scheduled local election at which all of the electors of the District are entitled to vote, or a statewide special election, upon a two-thirds vote of the Board; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to call an election in SFID No. 2 pursuant to the Law on November 5, 2024, which is the date of the statewide general election, and pursuant to Education Code Section 15121 and Elections Code Section 10400 and following, to request consolidation with any and all other elections held in the District on such date, and to request the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters (the “County Registrar”) to perform election services for the District, as the territory of SFID No 1 is entirely within Los Angeles County; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the calling of a bond election and in accordance with Education Code Section 15100 subparagraph (c), the Board has obtained reasonable and informed projections of assessed property valuations that take into consideration projections of assessed property valuations made by the County assessor, if any; and WHEREAS, pursuant to federal tax law, specifically United States Income Tax Regulations Section 1.150-2, the Board desires to declare its official intention at this time that if the measure submitted to voters hereunder is successful and bonds are issued pursuant to such measure, that it intends to reimburse from said bond proceeds

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1736 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement -3-
expenditures (if any) made by the District prior to the date of issuance of said bonds for the purposes described in the measure;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SANTA MONICAMALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Call for Election. The Board hereby orders an election and submits to the electors within the boundaries of SFID No. 2 the question of whether general obligation bonds of the District shall be issued and sold with respect to SFID No. 2 in the maximum principal amount of $395,000,000 for the purposes described in the ballot measure approved under Section 4 and attached hereto as Appendix A (Full Text) and Appendix B (Abbreviated Text), and paying all costs incident thereto. This Resolution constitutes the order of the District to call such election and shall constitute the “specifications of the election order” pursuant to Education Code Section 5322.

Section 3. Election Date; Boundary Map. The date of the election shall be November 5, 2024, and such bond election shall be held solely within the boundaries of SFID No. 2. The District Superintendent is authorized to provide the boundary map of SFID No. 2 and any other required documentation or directions to the County Registrar to facilitate the lawful conduct of the election within the boundaries of SFID No. 2.

Section 4. Purpose of Election; Ballot Measure. The purpose of the election shall be for the voters in SFID No. 2 to vote on a bond measure, a full copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix A and marked “Appendix A” (the “Full Text of the Measure”), containing the question of whether the District shall issue general obligation bonds with respect to SFID No. 2 for the purposes stated therein, together with the accountability requirements of Article XIIIA and the requirements of Section 15272 of the Act. The Full Text of the Measure, which commences with the heading “FULL TEXT OF BOND MEASURE” and includes all of the text thereafter as delineated on Appendix A, shall be printed in the voter information pamphlet provided to voters, with such measure letter designation as is assigned to the measure by the County elections official. The measure name shall be the “Malibu Schools Repair/ Improvement Bond Measure”.

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1737 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement -4-
authority for the specification of this election order is contained in Section 5322 of the Education Code. The vote passage requirement for the measure is least 55 percent of the voters voting on the measure.

Section 6. Proceeds for School Facilities Projects. The Board certifies that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIII A, Section 1(b)(3) as further specified in Appendix A, and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses. Further, as required by Article XIIIA, the Board hereby certifies that it has evaluated safety, class size and information technology needs in developing the list of school facilities projects set forth in Appendix A.

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1738 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement -5-
The County Registrar is hereby requested to print the full text of the ballot measure in the ballot materials as it appears on Appendix A hereto and to provide all required notices of the election and other notices related thereto.

Section 10. Consolidation of Election; Request to Provide Services. The County Registrar and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors are hereby requested to consolidate the election ordered hereby with any and all other elections to be held on November 5, 2024 within the District.

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1739 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement -6-
program, bond issuances and related tax rate, and, other than the total principal amount of bonds authorized to be issued by the bond measure, do not represent legal maximums or additional limitations beyond applicable legal requirements.

Finally, the abbreviated and condensed statement of the bond measure set forth in Appendix B, limited by State law to 75 words or less, does not limit the scope and broader and more complete meaning provided in the Full Text of Bond Measure, set forth in Appendix A.

Section 17. Appendices a Part of this Resolution. Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C hereto are deemed a part of and incorporated in full in the body of this Resolution.

Section 18. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect on and after its adoption.
* * * * * * * *

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1740 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1741
Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-1

APPENDIX A

FULL TEXT OF MEASURE

THE FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE TO BE PRINTED IN THE INFORMATION GUIDE BEGINS BELOW THE LINE. THE REGISTRAR IS REQUESTED TO INPUT THE

ASSIGNED MEASURE LETTER WHERE APPROPRIATE
____________________________

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2
(Malibu Schools)

GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE ___
This measure may be known as the “Malibu Schools Repair/ Improvement Bond Measure” or “Measure _____”.

BOND AUTHORIZATION
By approval of this measure by at least 55 percent of the registered voters voting on the measure, Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (the “District”) will be authorized to issue and sell bonds with respect to its School Facilities Improvement District No. 2 (Malibu Schools) (“SFID No. 2”) in the principal amount of up to $395 million at interest rates not to exceed legal limits and to provide financing for the specific types of school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List described below, subject to all the accountability requirements specified below.

ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS
The provisions in this section are specifically included in this measure in order that the voters and taxpayers in SFID No. 2 may be assured that their money will be spent wisely.

Expenditures to address specific facilities needs of SFID No. 2 will be in compliance with the requirements of Article XIIIA, Section 1(b)(3), of the State Constitution and the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act of 2000 (codified at Education Code Sections 15264 and following.)
Evaluation of Needs. The District Board of Education (the “Board”) has identified detailed facilities needs of facilities in SFID No. 2 and the Board has determined which projects to finance from a local bond. The Board hereby certifies that it has evaluated safety, class size reduction, enrollment growth, and information technology needs in developing the Bond Project List shown below.

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1742 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-2
Performance Audits. The Board will conduct annual, independent performance audits to ensure that the bond proceeds have been expended only on the school facilities projects listed below.

Financial Audits. The Board will conduct annual, independent financial audits of the bond proceeds until all of those proceeds have been spent for the types of school facilities projects listed below.

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1743 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-3
approximations are provided based on information currently available to the District and its current expectations, such estimates and approximations are not limitations and are not binding upon the District. In addition, the abbreviated and condensed statement of the bond measure presented to voters which is subject to a word count limitation of not to exceed 75 words imposed by State law does not limit the scope and complete meaning of the measure provided in this Full Text of Bond Measure and related ballot materials.

BOND PROJECT LIST
Scope of Projects. Bond proceeds will be expended on the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District with respect to SFID No. 2, including furnishing and equipping, and the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries or other school operating expenses, all in compliance with California Constitution Article XIIIA, Section 1(b)(3).

This measure authorizes bond projects to be undertaken at all current and future education, support and other ancillary sites and annexes within SFID No. 2, including bond projects at support sites providing services to facilities within SFID No. 2.

1. School Safety and Security Upgrades. Improvements, upgrades and/or repairs or replacements of District systems and facilities to achieve a safe, secure and accessible learning environment. Authorized projects include:
• Manage and remove potential physical hazards, including improving access, fire safety, seismic concerns, and other threats to life and safety • Remove and abate environmental hazards, including lead, asbestos, PCBs, mold and other toxins
• Improve indoor air quality to reduce environmental hazards and reduce the potential of the spread of airborne illnesses
• Practice crime prevention through environmental design making schools safer through natural surveillance, natural access, and territorality • Install Security and access control systems including surveillance systems, fire alarms, sprinkler systems, alarm systems, key/lock systems, communication systems and public address systems
• Update Security/perimeter fencing and gates, security cameras, signage and site lighting
• Replace/repair of damaged or non-compliant playground equipment • Resurface playgrounds, walkways and parking areas
• Ensure safe and barrier-free ADA compliant access at all facilities • Upgrade pedestrian access, drop off/pick up areas, varied mobility entry, bicycle storage, and reduce vehicle/student incursions

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1744 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-4

2. Repairing, upgrading, modernizing and replacing aging school facilities and buildings in the Malibu Area. Upgrades, repairs, renovations and/or replacements to facilities, buildings and building systems to address deteriorating, aging, failed or failing facilities, buildings, systems and/or equipment, increase energy efficiency and/or air quality, bring all facilities and systems into current code compliance and provide modern school facilities and classrooms. Authorized projects include:
 Structural repairs and upgrades, address leaky/aging roofing, replacement of windows, doors and building finish materials
 Interior finishes: paint, ceiling and wall finishes, window coverings, flooring and casework
 Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and other indoor air quality improvements
 Repairing inefficient and potentially faulty electrical systems  Repairing or replacing infrastructure including water, sewer, gas and related utility systems
 Electrical systems, including lighting, power distribution and control systems and other renewable energy systems such as wind turbines, solar panels and microgrids, including battery storage
 Plumbing including fixtures and repairs to sewer and water distribution systems  Repair, modernize, replace or add bathrooms, including modernizing/constructing additional bathrooms to be compliant with new accessibility requirements
 Upgrade, modernize, renovate, replace, equip and furnish District classrooms, academies, facilities for fine and performing arts, and other facilities serving students including kitchens, cafeterias, and multi-purpose rooms  Replacement of temporary and aging portable classrooms with permanent or upgraded facilities
 Renovate and/or construct new educational and/or support facilities to replace and/or expand facilities at existing, adjacent and new sites, as the Board of Education may determine is necessary to improve the delivery of the district’s educational programs and/or prevent overcrowding within the School Facilities Improvement District
 Develop and implement plan to address facilities needs at Malibu Middle and High Schools including renovation and rebuilding
 Assess elementary school physical and educational needs and develop/implement plan for renovation and rebuilding

3. Technology and Science Modernization Projects. Acquire, upgrade and install at school sites and District facilities up-to-date technology infrastructure and equipment to facilitate a modern learning environment including upgrading and equipping science, math and other project-based learning labs. Authorized projects include:
 Infrastructure such as wiring, switches, routers and wireless access infrastructure  Computers, devices and other modern instructional equipment and technology  Hardware and software and back-up and recovery and security technologies

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1745 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-5
• Science and laboratory modernization, including science equipment and instructional tools
• Project-based, innovation labs and maker space facilities, learning materials and equipment, including specialized career technology educational tools and materials

4. Renovations, upgrades and improvements to school sites/grounds and physical education/athletic facilities. Repair, upgrade, renovate and improve school grounds, play fields and physical education facilities, including equipment. Authorized projects include:
• Restore and upgrade play fields and playgrounds, including play/fitness equipment and hardtop and asphalt surfaces
• Repair, upgrade, replace and/or resurface, and equip physical education and athletic facilities, including outdoor tracks, gymnasiums, aquatics, locker rooms, bathrooms and all related facilities
• Install shade structures, traffic control devices, lighting and/or bleachers and other seating
• Mobility improvements, including drop off/pick up areas, circulation elements, safety/wayfinding/identity signage and parking facility improvements, including resurfacing, expansion, signage and lighting
• Install of cost-effective, efficient landscaping and irrigation systems, including drought resistant landscaping

5. Construct facilities for, and/or reconfigure/rebuild facilities, to support the operation of the central school district administration, including the potential for a Malibu Unified School District. The exploration, design and modernization/construction of facilities supporting the students, programs and needs of the Malibu area schools and programs. Authorized projects include:
• Temporary and/or permanent Administrative Office
• Maintenance, Operations and Transportation facilities • Workforce Housing
Furnishing and Equipping; Incidental Expenses. Each of the bond projects described in this Bond Project List include the costs of furnishing and equipping facilities throughout SFID No. 2, and all costs which are incidental but directly related to the types of projects described above.

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1746 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-6
construction; costs of relocating facilities and equipment as needed in connection with the projects; interim classrooms and facilities for students, administrators, and school functions, including modular facilities; all federal, state and locally-mandated safety upgrades; the costs of new or expanded infrastructure; the cost of providing parking and other facilities to accommodate new or expanded facilities; addressing any unforeseen conditions revealed by construction/modernization and other necessary improvements required to comply with existing building codes, including the Field Act; complying with all access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws and regulations; costs of the election including other costs arising directly from the bond measure; litigation costs; project construction oversight, management and administration during the duration of such projects including by District personnel, and bond issuance costs.

The District plans to pursue additional funding such as State matching funds, if available, to address its facilities needs.

Project List Not in Order of Priority; Board Determines Prioritization. The order in which projects are listed in the foregoing Bond Project List does not suggest an order of priority.

Project prioritization is vested in and will be determined by the District Board.

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1747 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement A-7
Interpretation. The terms of this Bond Measure and the words used in the Bond Project List shall be interpreted broadly to effect the purpose of providing broad and clear authority for the officers and employees of the District to provide for the school facilities projects the District proposes to finance with the proceeds of the sale of bonds authorized by this proposition within the authority provided by law, including Article XIIIA, Section 1(b)(3) of the California Constitution, Education Code Section 15000 et seq. and the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act of 2000. Words used in the Project List such as repair, improve, upgrade, expand, modernize, renovate, and reconfigure are used to describe school facilities projects in plain English but are not intended to expand the nature of such projects beyond what is authorized by law. The Bond Project List does not authorize, and shall not be interpreted to authorize, the expenditure of proceeds of the sale of bonds authorized by this measure for current maintenance, operation or repairs.

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1748 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement B-1

APPENDIX B

ABBREVIATED FORM OF BOND MEASURE
(Ballot Label)
MALIBU SCHOOLS REPAIR/IMPROVEMENT BOND MEASURE. To
remove asbestos/lead/hazardous materials where needed; fix leaky roofs, plumbing, inadequate wiring, safety/security systems; upgrade classrooms, labs, libraries, instructional technology for competitive college and careers; shall School Facilities Improvement District No. 2 (Malibu Schools) of Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s measure be adopted authorizing $395,000,000 of bonds at legal interest rates, levying 4¢ per $100 assessed value (raising $22 million annually) while bonds are outstanding, with citizens' oversight, annual audits, and all funds for Malibu public schools only?
Bonds—Yes Bonds—No

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1749 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement C-1

APPENDIX C
The text of the Tax Rate Statement to be printed in the election material begins below the following line.
______________________________________

TAX RATE STATEMENT

REGARDING PROPOSED
$395 MILLION

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 (MALIBU SCHOOLS)

GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
An election will be held in School Facilities Improvement District No. 2 (Malibu Schools) (the “Improvement District”) of Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (the “District”) on November 5, 2024, to authorize the sale of up to $395 million in bonds to finance school facilities improvements in the Improvement District as described in the measure. If such bonds are authorized and sold, principal and interest on the bonds will be payable only from the proceeds of ad valorem tax levies made upon the taxable property in the Improvement District. The following information is provided in compliance with Sections 9400-9404 of the Elections Code of the State of California. Such information is based upon the best estimates and projections presently available from official sources, upon experience within the Improvement District, and other demonstrable factors.

Based upon the foregoing and projections of the Improvement District’s assessed valuation, the following information is provided:

1. The best estimate of the average annual tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue over the entire duration of the bond debt service, based on a projection of assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is $39.59 per $100,000 of assessed value (3.959¢ per $100 of assessed value). The final fiscal year in which the tax is anticipated to be collected is 2060-61.

2. The best estimate of the highest tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue, based on a projection of assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is $39.95 per $100,000 of assessed value (3.995¢ per $100 of assessed value). It is estimated that such rate would be levied starting in fiscal years 2025-26 through 2056-57.

3. The best estimate of the total debt service, including the principal and interest, that would be required to be repaid if all the bonds are issued and sold is approximately $790,920,958.

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1750 Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 1751
Attachment: 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement 1 David Yakobson
From: Danielle L <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 3:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16 B - Measure Letter of Support
Attachments: Measure Support Letter .pdf
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1752 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) August 26, 2024
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Subject: Support for Measure QS - Enhancing Our Schools’ Infrastructure I am writing to express my strong support for Measure QS, which is crucial for the future of our educational facilities within the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD). As a concerned resident of Santa Monica, I urge the City Council to endorse this measure, which aims to address the pressing infrastructure needs of our local schools.

The quality of education in our district is a testament to the dedication and excellence of our educators, staff, and administrators. However, the buildings housing our schools have been deteriorating over the past 30 to 70 years. The general fund for education in California falls significantly short of meeting the needs of these larger improvements.

Measure QS represents a critical step toward ensuring the additional funds needed to enable necessary repairs, upgrades, and ongoing maintenance to preserve the integrity of our educational infrastructure. Safe and sound school buildings are fundamental to providing a conducive learning environment and ensuring the longevity of these facilities for future generations.

Our neighborhoods and community rely on having robust and functional school structures. By supporting Measure QS, we are investing in the safety and future of our students and the overall well-being of our community. The measure will help us maintain the high standards of education that Santa Monica is known for and address the urgent need for building repairs and updates.

I respectfully urge the Santa Monica City Council to support Measure QS and advocate for its passage. This measure is an essential investment in the future of our schools and the continued success of our students.

Thank you for considering my request. Your support in this matter will have a lasting positive impact on our community.

Sincerely,
Danielle Litak
Resident and Roosevelt Elementary Parent
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1753 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 2 David Yakobson
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 1:17 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis
Cc: David White; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-B 8/27/24 -- Please endorse Measure QS

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I'm writing in my capacity as co-chair of Community for Excellent Public Schools (CEPS). As you know, CEPS has been advocating for our children and our public education institutions since 1999. We have, of course, endorsed Measure QS.

First, an anecdote. Several years ago when our son had just finished his first day at Santa Monica High I asked him how it went. He replied with great enthusiasm about most of his classes which were in the new Discovery building, extolling without prompting from me the virtues of learning in bright, airy classrooms with modern amenities and equipment. He's a kid who has a hard time focusing, but the environment of this new building built with bond financing really helped him to pay attention. But he then lamented that he had one course in the much older Language building, which he complained was a cramped, hot and stifling classroom in which he couldn't pay attention at all. I won't repeat the obscenities he used.

Over the years I've learned his peers at Samohi share his feelings, that they don't learn as well in the old Language building. And the teachers likewise prefer working in the newer 21st century facilities.

Our children are coming of age in a world fraught with peril and challenges: the intractable polarization in our country, diminishing prospects for lower and middle income households, unaffordable housing and the impacts of climate change, to name a few. We owe it to them to ensure they receive the best possible education so they will have the opportunity to thrive in a rapidly changing world.

So I urge you to endorse Measure QS, as there is still much capital work to be done at our Santa Monica school campuses, particularly the elementary schools where the foundation for future academic success is set. Set aside politics and support our kids and teachers please: it's the right thing to do.

Oh, and last week our son started senior year. Many of his classes are in the new Exploration building.

He's particularly excited about the new engineering facilities that have rekindled his interest in a class for which he'd lost his enthusiasm junior year. And he still dislikes going to his other classes in the Language building.

Please endorse Measure QS.

Regards,
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1754 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 3 Ted
--
Ted Winterer
Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
DRE #02047989
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1755 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:56 AM
To: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Gleam Davis
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan; councilmtgitems
Subject: SMCC 2024-08-27 Item 16.B. - City Council endorsement of SMUSD Bond Measure QS

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Borck and Honorable Councilmembers,
Re: SMCC 2024-08-27 Item 16.B. - City Council endorsement of SMUSD Bond Measure QS.

This leƩer is in strong opposiƟon to any City endorsement of this poorly conceived bond iniƟaƟve. It is a complete disservice to the students of the district and the taxpayers of this city.

Below are the specifics of my opposiƟon.

1. There is no legally binding project list.

The district is not publicly and legally commiƫng to specific projects. This indicates that the money can be used to cover old project overruns, new unannounced projects or modificaƟons on exisƟng projects.

2. DiscreƟonary district spending eliminated the discipline to idenƟfy and prioriƟze specific needs to address and risks to resolve, shiŌing the prioriƟzaƟon away from the students’ needs. Consequently, this bond is “fixing” the same things the previous bonds promised to fix.
a. Repair leaky roofs - They allowed student exposure to mold at John Muir Elementary School and required closure. How many other schools have mold and leaky roofs? b. Install HVAC at all schools - Promised in 2016 within four years for $33 million. SƟll not done. They also refused to install the filters recommended for clean air by mulƟple agencies.
c. Update security systems - Promised since the 2012 Sandy Hook incident d. Replace portable classrooms - Only 15 were replaced with the last bond and only 9 would be replaced with this bond, leaving 37. Yet, a post-educaƟonal Discovery building has gone up in the meanƟme.

Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1756 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 2 3. There is no accountability
Lacking a legally binding project list, the endlessly-hyped “audit” provisions allow the district’s Bond Oversight CommiƩee to cerƟfy only that the bond money was spent on construcƟon and not operaƟons.

4. District financial controls appear to remain woefully inadequate I conducted a review of the district’s capital projects financial controls in 2021. That review can be found here and discovered that:
a. There were no formal (and recurring Ɵmely) capital project financial reporƟng controls that allowed the detecƟon, correcƟon and accountability for project overruns.
b. The concept of standardized capital project financial reporƟng with locked iniƟal budgets and clear tracking of changes in esƟmated final costs was neither designed nor implemented in project and financial management
In addiƟon, the financial accountants tracking project spends conƟnue to report to the project management and not to the district’s head of finance. This violates the fundamental tenet of basic financial internal control of financial staff having a hard organizaƟonal reporƟng line to district financial management financial and only an indirect reporƟng line to operaƟng management. This is industry standard pracƟces to ensure independent oversight of organizaƟonal spending. This ongoing control defect suggest that the accountants can be exposed to undue influence of those spending the funds.

Conclusion
Since 1998, the district (excluding Malibu) has been voted $1.2 billion. With interest, that’s around $2 billion in taxpayer funds. In all this Ɵme, the issues noted above have been allowed to fester and accountability has not improved.

The residents have shown their consistent good faith support for, and prioriƟzaƟon of, the kids in our schools by approving bond aŌer bond. The bonds have given the district wide laƟtude to demonstrate that faith was well placed. The outcomes have clearly proven otherwise. What the district has clearly demonstrated is that it is a real estate operaƟon with an educaƟon side hustle.

City endorsement of any future bonds must be conƟngent on the district inserƟng legally binding project commitments, accountability, and fixing the myriad capital project financial control voids that allows financial problems with the spending to conƟnue unabated and disrespects the sacrifices of the taxpayers in providing the funds.

Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1757 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 3 This bond must not be endorsed.

Respecƞully,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1758 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 4 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: 16B - Endorsement of SMMUSD Bond for Santa Monica - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I urge you to OPPOSE an endorsement of SMMUSD's school construction bond for Santa Monica.

This is another HALF A BILLION DOLLAR blank check to the school district. SMMUSD's facilities staff has botched construction on many projects with the prior $1.12 BILLION in bond funds and failed to maintain the facilities we already have. District facilities staff are failing to manage the program and the school board is derelict in its oversight obligations. While school bonds will be needed to fix our schools, residents are demanding an AUDIT of all prior spending and results BEFORE approving another bond.

SMMUSD's bond ratings have decreased because of deficit spending and dwindling reserves. They do not know how to manage construction or spending and we are entitled to an audit to determine where the problems are and what needs to change before moving forward with more construction.

You all know little to nothing about SMMUSD construction and should not be making a decision about an endorsement without educating yourselves on all the problems and reviewing the arguments against the bond. Supporting this bond means saddling your constituents with paying for bond waste for another 30 years. This is unacceptable
Furthermore, the FPPC said Lana Negrete has a conflict of interest on school district items because her business has contracts with the district. She shouldn’t be pushing this or voting on it and must recuse. She also signed the ballot argument for the bond with her Vice Mayor title and that should be investigated for its propriety.

Thanks,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident of 26 years
Former SMMUSD Parent for 15 years
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1759 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 16.B. - SMMUSD Facilities Bond

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 16.B. SMMUSD Facilities Bond.

Until there is an audit and accountability I ask you to oppose any new school bond.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1760 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dan Charn. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; David White; [email protected] Subject: CC MTG 8/27/24 ITEM 16 B- OPPOSE QS

EXTERNAL
The School Board has shown us that they are build happy and irresponsible to our students and City taxpayers.. no more money to them- they should have taken care of this before and not build such absurd buildings that are not needed ... Tired of their lack of concern to the City in all ways.. no more money to them for a thing ..

Danielle Charney
B. Request of Vice Mayor Negrete and Councilmember Davis that the City Council support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure QS.

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.New Item Received.
8/22/2024
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
documentStaff Report Printouta. 072424_Resolution_SFID 1 Bond Nov Ballot_attachb. 072424_Resolution_SFID 2 Bond Nov Ballot_attach Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1761 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Debbie Mulvaney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Yes on Measure QS
Attachments: image001.png; Mulvaney letter to City Council.pdf

EXTERNAL
Please have this letter entered into the record for tomorrow night's meeting.

Thanks.

Debbie Mulvaney
310-600-1864
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1762 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) August 26, 2024
Dear Mayor Brock, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and Councilmembers Davis, Parra, de la Torre, Torosis and Zwick
I am writing to you as the treasurer and longtime member of Community for Excellent Public Schools (CEPS) to urge you to support the Santa Monica school bond – Measure QS – on this November’s ballot. I hope you will join CEPS mission to advocate for excellent public schools in our community.

Measure QS will help our schools remain among the best in the nation and provide our teachers and children a safe and 21st century learning environment. General obligation bonds are the only way the District can make these critical repairs and upgrades to classrooms and learning labs.

You may have been told that Measure QS does not include a project list. That is false. Measure QS includes a robust project list for all 12 schools that was developed with parent, teacher and resident input, in addition to District inspections of school sites.

You may have heard that the Measure QS is unfair because it does not allow for a senior exemption. State law specifically precludes a senior exemption for general obligation bonds, of which Measure QS is one.

We can count on Measure QS funds to be spent responsibly and as promised, as it has financial oversight through the Citizens’ Oversight Committee, and independent performance and financial audits that ensure funds are spent in accordance with the bond language. Additionally, the District has demonstrated remarkable fiscal responsibility as evidenced by its Moody’s Aa1 bond credit rating and Standard and Poor’s AA+ superior bond credit rating. The District's fiscal prudence has saved taxpayers $50 million over the past 10 years alone.

Our community must come together in support of this bond. We owe it to our dedicated teachers and our children.

Sincerely,
Debbie Mulvaney
Treasurer, Community for Excellent Public Schools
Principal, Mulvaney Business Management
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1763 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Victoria Robinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 6:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: Item 16B - SMMUSD Facilities Bond - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
The school district has already received $1.13 BILLION in school bonds and much of this has been wasted. The same things have been promised for decades and not delivered, many of the new projects don't work, and they have failed to maintain what we have. This doesn't benefit our students or teachers.

Santa Monica residents are entitled to an AUDIT of the past spending before approving another bond. I urge you to vote NO on this endorsement so the residents can get the accountability they deserve.

Thank you.

Victoria Robinson
SAMOHI Parent & SM Voter
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1764 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 2 David Yakobson
From: LYDIA MURARO <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 11:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 16B - SMMUSD Facilities Bond - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
City Council,
The school district has Carey Upton in charge and it is a disaster. SO MUCH money wasted, things are breaking, malfunctioning left and right and nothing is getting fixed on massively expensive buildings. Millions of dollars need to be set aside to fix what we have (including the brand new buildings). There are no plans for maintenance. It is RIDICULOUS. SMASH is demolished down to its studs and that building wasn’t even 35 years old. Yeah, mold, is what settled after complete neglect, what do you think will happen to the new buildings? How long will they last? Please vote NO on this. Take a break and a step back. Give the kids and the teachers a break from constant construction, pollution and noise. Please AUDIT the past spending BEFORE approving another bond. It is just the right thing to do.

I urge you to vote NO on this endorsement. You should require the school district to be accountable. You need your residents to think of you as diligent and to trust you.

Endorsing this bond will produce the exact opposite.

Thank you.

Lydia Muraro.
(818) 216-7378 mobile
Former SMMUSD parent (my last kid was class of 2024)
Santa Monica Business Owner
Santa Monica resident for over 25 years
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1765 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 16 B Measure QS.

EXTERNAL
Oppose.

Why are such measures only funded by taxing homeowners and businesses? Do renters not have a stake in improving schools and education system? Do renters have no children in our school system?
Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024
Item 16-B
August 27, 2024

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1766 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6568 : Support and endorse the Santa Monica Schools Repair/Improvement Bond Measure) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 27, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmember Davis that the City waive all applicable fees for the Veterans’ Day celebration on the Pier on November 11. The celebration will have numerous dignitaries and include a demonstration by the West Point Drill Team.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

16.C
Packet Pg. 1767
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 27, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Designation of a board member to the Independent Cities Association (ICA) for a term ending December 31, 2024.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

16.D
Packet Pg. 1768
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 27, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: A request by Mayor Brock requesting the City Council direct the City Manager to send a letter to LA County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and Inglewood Mayor James Butts, Santa Monica's representatives on the Los Angeles Metro Board of Directors, expressing the City’s strong support for LA Metro’s Sepulveda Transit Corridor project to include a direct, on-campus station at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), along with a seamless connection to the Metro Purple/D Line Westwood Village station. Additionally, the request includes joining the Sepulveda Transit Corridor for All (STCAll) coalition—a grassroots group advocating for an accessible and equitable Sepulveda Transit Corridor that connects the Westside region and the San Fernando Valley with a direct station at UCLA and a seamless link to the Purple/D Line at Westwood Village—and authorizing the use of the City’s logo on the coalition’s website.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

16.E
Packet Pg. 1769
1 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Support 16E for Sepulveda transit cooridor

EXTERNAL
Good evening,
Please support 16E to endorse the on campus station and seamless link to the purple line. Although not within Santa Monica's border, this project will provide an enormous benefit to the entire region.

Thanks
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 16-E
August 27, 2024
Item 16-E
August 27, 2024

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1770 Attachment: Written Comments (6573 : Sepulveda Transit Corridor) 2 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:11 PM
To: Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16.E: In Support

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am glad to see Item 16.E and am personally in support, as a Santa Monica resident who works in Westwood. Having a direct rail station on UCLA's campus is a regional issue and an issue for Santa Monica residents and workers. To take a route without an on-campus stop would be one of the biggest transportation missed opportunities I could imagine.

Jacob Wasserman
11th and Washington
90403
Item 16-E
August 27, 2024
Item 16-E
August 27, 2024

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1771 Attachment: Written Comments (6573 : Sepulveda Transit Corridor) 1 David Yakobson
From: GIRARD_DONALD <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Kathryn Jeffery; BONVENUTO_CHRIS
Subject: Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project – Item 16-E (August 27, 2024 Meeting)

EXTERNAL
RE: Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project – Item 16-E (August 27, 2024 Meeting) Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing on behalf of Santa Monica College to express strong support for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project and for the inclusion of an on-campus UCLA metro station in the proposed transit expansion. Santa Monica, as a neighboring community, stands to benefit significantly from this addition.

A UCLA station would substantially reduce traffic congestion on the 405 freeway and surrounding streets, easing the daily commute for Santa Monica residents who work, study, or seek medical care at UCLA. This station would directly connect Santa Monica to one of the largest employers in Los Angeles County, providing over 40,000 employees and 44,000 students with a more efficient and sustainable commuting option. Such a connection would promote equity, particularly for those who cannot afford the high cost of car ownership or the expensive housing near UCLA.

For your information, four of the five remaining alternatives under study for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project include an on-campus UCLA station. Alternative 1 does not, Alternative 2 has been eliminated, Alternative 3 is an automated monorail with an on-campus UCLA station with connections at the Wilshire D Line and a terminus at the Sepulveda E Line station, Alternative 4 is automated heavy rail with an on-campus UCLA station with connections at the Wilshire D Line and a terminus at the Sepulveda E Line station, Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 4 but entirely underground, and Alternative 6 is driver-operated heavy rail with an on-campus UCLA station with connections at the Wilshire D Line and a terminus at the Bundy E Line station.

Both the City of Santa Monica and Santa Monica College have written letters to Metro in the past supporting the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project with a southern terminus at the Bundy E Line Station.

Santa Monica College joined the Sepulveda Transit Corridor for All (STCAll) coalition in April of 2022. We encourage the City of Santa Monica to consider an affirmative vote on its decision to join this important grassroots coalition.

Sincerely,
Donald Girard
Senior Director, Government Relations and Institutional Communications Santa Monica College
1900 Pico Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 434-4287 work
Item 16-E
August 27, 2024
Item 16-E
August 27, 2024

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1772 Attachment: Written Comments (6573 : Sepulveda Transit Corridor) 2 David Yakobson
From: Ed Costello <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 7:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Big BLUE Buses

EXTERNAL
Please fund and support our terrific bus system and its connectivity to Metro and other communities.

Thank you.

Edward J. Costello
"In our nation's 247 year history,
there has never been an individual
who is greater threat to our republic
than Donald Trump."
Dick Cheney, Sep. 7, 2023
Item 16-E
August 27, 2024
Item 16-E
August 27, 2024

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1773 Attachment: Written Comments (6573 : Sepulveda Transit Corridor) 3 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 11:47 AM
To: Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16.E, in Support: For Reference: North Westwood Neighborhood Council Statement on a Sepulveda Transit Corridor Station on UCLA's Campus Attachments: CIS_UCLA Station on Sepulveda Transit Corridor.pdf

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
The following is sent in my personal capacity, regarding Item 16.E on the City Council agenda for Tuesday, August 27:

For your reference, the North Westwood Neighborhood Council (the most local level of elected Los Angeles city government)—representing tens of thousands of stakeholders, many of whom are residents of Santa Monica with work, business, or school in Westwood—passed the statement attached, below, and linked here, expressing support for a station on UCLA's campus on the future Sepulveda Transit Corridor.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Jacob Wasserman
11th and Washington
90403
---
- COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT -
Council File: 19-0002-S145
Title: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) / Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project / Transit Feasibility Study
Item 16-E
August 27, 2024
Item 16-E
August 27, 2024

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1774 Attachment: Written Comments (6573 : Sepulveda Transit Corridor) 4 Position: For
Summary:

The North Westwood Neighborhood Council strongly echoes the sentiments expressed by numerous elected officials, neighborhood organizations, community groups, business associations, and many local citizens who urge that Metro must include a station located directly on the UCLA campus as part of this pivotal transportation corridor project—specifically a one-seat ride from the San Fernando Valley directly to UCLA, hewing to Metro’s original proposal which suggested a 16-minute travel time for that segment, the fastest connection between the Valley and Westside and one that directly links people to where they want to go. This would be one of the most heavily trafficked Metro stops in the state and would be the busiest non-transfer station in Metro’s system.

The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project is part of the Measure M expenditure plan, with approximately $5.7 billion for new transit service to connect the San Fernando Valley and the Westside, scheduled to open by 2033-35. Approximately $3.8 billion is allocated to extend that service from the Westside to LAX with a 2057-59 opening date.

Metro is making strides to improve travel between the San Fernando Valley, the Westside and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The natural barrier created by the Santa Monica Mountains means that most people traveling between these areas are funneled primarily onto the I-405 Freeway, already ranked as one of the most heavily congested urban highways in the nation. More than 400,000 people travel through this area every day to commute to work, school, and other destinations along the freeway and beyond.

Having a Metro Station located directly on the UCLA campus would also help transport the tens of thousands of individuals who travel to UCLA on a daily basis, including: UCLA students, staff, faculty, medical personnel, patients, and campus visitors.

Not having a Metro Station on the UCLA campus would be a sorely missed opportunity, and have significant negative impacts on the West L.A. region and regional traffic congestion for decades to come. An on-campus UCLA Station also presents the opportunity to connect the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project to the Metro Purple Line subway station extension, which will have a Westwood/UCLA Station located at Wilshire and Westwood Boulevards. Additionally, without a one-seat ride to the Valley, ridership would be significantly hindered, thereby negatively impacting Metro’s farebox recovery needs.

To provide this essential connectivity between transit lines in the San Fernando Valley and the City, to provide the critical “first mile, last mile” link between the Wilshire Purple Line subway and the UCLA campus, and to build a robust transportation system that will serve transit riders for many decades to come, we also urge the Metro Board to ensure that the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project also connect directly from the on-campus UCLA Station to the Westwood/UCLA Purple Line Subway Station at Wilshire Boulevard, to connect these two major north-south and east-west transit corridors.

Item 16-E
August 27, 2024
Item 16-E
August 27, 2024

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1775 Attachment: Written Comments (6573 : Sepulveda Transit Corridor) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 27, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmember de la Torre, Vice Mayor Negrete and Mayor Brock that the City Council direct the City Attorney and City Manager to draft language of proposed resolutions for consideration by the League of California Cities (CalCities), Independent Cities Association (ICA), and Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSCCOG) asking the State Legislature and Governor to change laws to provide for local control over the dissemination of syringes and other drug paraphernalia in local communities; and direct the City Manager to assist each of the Council’s appointed representatives to CalCities, ICA, and WSCCOG in submitting the draft resolutions to each of the above mentioned organizations for consideration of adoption. On two occasions, the City Council has taken action to demand that the County cease the distribution of syringes and other drug paraphernalia in its parks and away from schools. As part of previous Council actions, the City also demanded that the County relocate the distribution of syringes and other drug paraphernalia to an indoors location. Attached is the Resolution adopted by City Council on April 9, 2024 and a letter adopted by the City Council that was transmitted to the County.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Resolution_No._11580_(CCS)
B. Mayor County Letter 9.15.22
C. Written Comments

16.F
Packet Pg. 1776
1 City Council Meeting: April 9, 2024 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER 11580 (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA OBJECTING TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

CLEAN NEEDLE DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA WHEREAS, at the March 19, 2024, meeting, Council directed the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare and return for Council approval within 30 days a resolution expressing the City’s disapproval of Los Angeles County’s implementation of the “Harm Reduction Services” program, or clean needle distribution program, in the City of Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, the Council supports harm reduction services as an option to connect individuals who are not readily accessing healthcare, behavioral health, and substance abuse services; and
WHEREAS, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration harm reduction services can:
• Connect individuals to overdose education, counseling, and referral to treatment for infectious diseases and substance use disorders. • Distribute opioid overdose reversal medications (e.g., naloxone) to individuals at risk of overdose, or to those who are likely to respond to an overdose.
• Lessen harms associated with drug use and related behaviors that increase the risk of infectious diseases, including HIV, viral hepatitis, and bacterial and fungal infections.

DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFDCB74-1DCC-4867-995A-3D212E5E473D

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1777 Attachment: Resolution_No._11580_(CCS) (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 2 • Reduce infectious disease transmission among people who use drugs (including those who inject drugs) by equipping them with sterile supplies, accurate information and facilitating referrals to resources. • Reduce overdose deaths, promote linkages to care, facilitate co-location of services as part of a comprehensive, integrated approach. • Reduce stigma associated with substance use and co-occurring disorders. • Promote a philosophy of hope and healing ― by employing people with living and lived experience in leadership and in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of services. People with lived experience can also model for their peers what meaningful change can look like in their lives.
• Build community and increase protective factors ― for people who use drugs and their families.

WHEREAS, the Council understands that under the auspices of Los Angeles County, the Venice Family Clinic provides a range of harm reduction services in Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires for Los Angeles County in implementing hard reduction services in Santa Monica to consider the impacts of providing these services in City parks and near schools and implement alternative approaches; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 121349.2, states “[l]ocal government, local health officials, and law enforcement shall be given the opportunity to comment on clean needle and exchange programs on a biennial basis. The public shall DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFDCB74-1DCC-4867-995A-3D212E5E473D

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1778 Attachment: Resolution_No._11580_(CCS) (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 3 be given the opportunity to provide input to local leaders to ensure that any potential adverse impacts on the public welfare of clean needle and exchange programs are addressed and mitigated” (emphasis added); and
WHEREAS, in Grant Park Neighborhood Association v. Department of Public Health et al., the California State Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District issued an opinion holding that the Department of Public Health (DPH) failed to follow statutory procedures to allow local officials and communities to provide input before the DPH issued a permit to operate a privately run Clean Needle Program in Santa Cruz County.

The essence of the holding is that local communities must be consulted prior to implementation of the program. However, that consultation is meaningless if the Department then ignores the input from local officials and the community; and WHEREAS, the Council finds it necessary to clarify that it does not object to the County providing harm reduction services in Santa Monica, but rather the Council objects to one aspect of harm reduction services that is the provision of clean syringes in or near City parks and schools; and
WHEREAS, the Council is affirming its request that the provision of clean syringes must be indoors at more suitable locations; and
WHEREAS, the record should reflect that the City Council, not the City Manager, City Attorney, nor any other City officials or staff determines official City policy on matters such as this.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City of Santa Monica supports harm reduction as an important tool to connect individuals to healthcare, behavioral health, and substance abuse DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFDCB74-1DCC-4867-995A-3D212E5E473D

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1779 Attachment: Resolution_No._11580_(CCS) (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 4 resources but objects to the County of Los Angeles Substance Abuse Prevention and Control Bureau’s (County) distribution of clean needles and other drug paraphernalia in parks or near schools.

SECTION 2. The City strongly demands that the County relocate the distribution of clean needles and other drug paraphernalia indoors, away from City parks and schools and that the program should require a one for one exchange of clean for used needles.

SECTION 3. This resolution shall be transmitted to County officials.

SECTION 4. 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:
_________________________
Doug Sloan, City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFDCB74-1DCC-4867-995A-3D212E5E473D

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1780 Attachment: Resolution_No._11580_(CCS) (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) Adopted and approved this 9
th day of April, 2024.
__________________________
Phil Brock, Mayor
I, Nikima S. Newsome, Interim City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 11580 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of the Santa Monica City Council held on the 9
th day of April, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, de la Torre
Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Brock
NOES: Councilmembers Zwick, Davis, Torosis
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Nikima S. Newsome, Interim City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFDCB74-1DCC-4867-995A-3D212E5E473D

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1781 Attachment: Resolution_No._11580_(CCS) (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8201 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity September 14, 2022
Sent Via Email
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Board Executive Office, Room 383
Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Board Chair Mitchell and Honorable Members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, The City of Santa Monica has an established track record of deploying a comprehensive and collaborative approach to addressing homelessness. More specifically, Santa Monica has implemented a Four Pillar Strategy to address homelessness and prevent residents from becoming unhoused. Immediate and consistent engagement combined with services, treatment, and housing is core to our local strategy. The following outlines our Four Pillar Strategy:

1. Prevent housed Santa Monicans from becoming homeless and increase the supply of affordable housing;

2. Address the behavioral health needs of vulnerable residents;

3. Maintain equitable access to safe, fun, and healthy open spaces; and

4. Strengthen regional capacity to address homelessness.

Over the years, implementing this strategy has resulted in the production of affordable housing, deployment of multi-disciplinary outreach teams, and the provision of rental assistance and legal services to tenants who are at risk of eviction. In addition, new innovations have been implemented or are forthcoming. Examples include:
• Our Fire Department’s Community Response Unit, which provides an alternative response to 9-1-1 calls for service to better address the needs of vulnerable populations; and
• A partnership with the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health to bring forward a Therapeutic Transport Van staffed with behavioral health professionals and people with lived experiences who offer supportive resources for non-violent mental health-related calls for service. The City has committed $400,000 to this initiative.

Clearly, the City of Santa Monica is committed to addressing the issue of homelessness in a wholistic and compassionate manner.

In alignment with our Four Pillar Strategy outlined above, Pillar 3 reflects the City’s desire to maintain equitable access to safe, fun, and healthy spaces. Because roughly 70% of Santa Monicans are renters, our community relies on the City’s parks and open spaces as they do not have access to private open space. This includes families with young children, as well as seniors. It has come to our attention that the Venice Family Clinic under the purview of the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, Substance Abuse and Prevention and Control Division is providing clean needles to individuals in our parks and open spaces through the Harm Reduction Syringe Services Program. We understand our limited regulatory authority, however, rather than implement this program in our parks and open spaces, we seek your assistance in immediately moving this program to a service rich environment (preferably indoors) where individuals in need of substance abuse, mental health, and other services can coordinate and work directly with service providers. We have been apprised that our staff has been involved in constructive conversations with the County and we want to make sure you are aware of this partnership and collaboration. As a next step, our staff will be asking the County for a formal proposal and it is our aspiration that, at a minimum, what materializes is a pilot project in which the County places

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1782 Attachment: Mayor County Letter 9.15.22 (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8201 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity restrictions on the time, place, and manner in which the Harm Reduction Syringe Services Program is administered that aligns with the City’s strategy to address homelessness.

Over the years, the City has developed strong partnerships with the County. We desire to build on this foundation to pursue new approaches to provide the services that are needed for those struggling with substance abuse. Your support is appreciated as our staff continues to work with the County.

Sincerely,
Sue Himmelrich
Mayor
Cc: David White, City Manager
Doug Sloan, City Attorney
Gary Tsai, Division Director, Substance Abuse Prevention and Control Supervisor Candidate, Senator Bob Hertzberg
Supervisor Candidate, City Councilmember Lindsey Horvath

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1783 Attachment: Mayor County Letter 9.15.22 (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; David White Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: August 27th Agenda: Support items 10C-11A -- Opposed items 16F-16G Attachments: 2024-08 CC Agenda items- 10C-11A-16F-16G.pdf

EXTERNAL
Please see the attached letter in support of Agenda Items 10C and 11A and in opposition to Agenda Items 16F and 16G.

Cynthia Rose Cris Gutierrez and Anya Baroff
--
Cynthia Rose
Co-Chair
Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance
SaMoSafeStreets.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

Item 16-F
August 27, 2024
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024

16.F.c
Packet Pg. 1784 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia)

August 27, 2024
RE: Agenda Items: 10C, 11A, 16F, 16G
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance and community human rights advocate are writing in support of Agenda Items 10C and 11A and in opposition to Agenda Items 16F and 16G.

Support — Agenda Item 10C:

We support this common sense, ethical and accountable approach to preventing the appearance of bias with the acceptance of gratuities by our public officials. Also of concern is public officials awarding gratuities to special interests.

Support – Agenda item 11A:

Our Santa Monica values and priorities for a safe and clean community and robust economic recovery cannot be realized without a humane approach to provide more affordable homes. It is not only our civic and moral duty but the law. How else could anyone really expect to help solve the affordability and unhoused problems? We ask that you stay the course and continue to thoughtfully and expeditiously move these projects forward and not allow them to be undermined by a few loud and privileged voices. Santa Monica needs your thoughtful and steadfast leadership.

Oppose – Agenda item 16F:

We cannot solve our problems - in fact we create more grave problems - by ignoring the solutions to and needed compassion for those in crisis and in need. It is proven that to get our vulnerable population the help they need - we must meet them where they are. We must not vilify humans in crisis and deny them the very services they must have to survive and lift themselves out of homelessness and addiction. That is the essence of what we hope to live up to in Santa Monica – to be a compassionate and mature community.

Oppose - Agenda item 16G
As expressed in opposition to Agenda Item 16F: We cannot solve our problems - in fact we create more grave problems - by ignoring the solutions to and needed compassion for those in crisis and in need. It is proven that to get our vulnerable population the help they need - we must meet them where they are. We must not vilify humans in crisis and deny them the very services they must have to survive and lift themselves out of homelessness and addiction. That is the essence of what we hope to live up to in Santa Monica – to be a compassionate and mature community. We ALL need to do our part to support those in need – not kick them or the issue down the road or across city lines.

16.F.c
Packet Pg. 1785 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 8:59 PM
To: Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16.F: Against Efforts to Undermine Harm Reduction Programs that Keep Our Parks Safe

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a Santa Monica resident, parent, and regular park user with my child, I support needle exchange harm reduction programs and thus oppose Item 16.F. Needle exchange saves lives, as supported by reams of scientific evidence. I also do not want to run into needles in the park, and it is for that exact reason that I support needle exchange programs. Please do not fight against these programs that support our city's most vulnerable.

Sincerely,
Jacob Wasserman
11th Street and Washington Avenue
90403
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024

16.F.c
Packet Pg. 1786 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dan Charn. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 7:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; [email protected]; David White Subject: Agenda Item 16-F & G
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
JUST DO IT......STAND UP FOR RESIDENTS - STOP MAKING NICE WITH THE COUNTY ..NO MORE GAMES, DEALS OR BRIBES ..

YES TO THIS:
"Eliminate the distribution by the County or any County-affiliated, non County-affiliated, third party, and/or independent private entity, of all drug paraphernalia and equipment, including but not limited to any and all drugs, opioids, needles, syringes, glass pipes, straws, rolling paper, miniature spoons, etc., in our parks, other City-owned spaces and anywhere closer than 1,000 feet away from any school, other educational facility, church, senior center or senior living facility, YMCA/YWCA, or Boys and Girls Clubs. The only exception would be Narcan, which can help revive someone who is unresponsive. The terms of this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage." GET CONTROL OF OUR CITY - TAKE IT BACK FROM THE COUNTY..

STOP SELLING US OUT TO THEM - AND TO WAYMO, BITCOIN, COCO AND EVERY PEDDLER THAT COMES TO TOWN..

JUST STOP IT

DANIELLE CHARNEY
Yes I am yelling
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024

16.F.c
Packet Pg. 1787 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 2 so tired of the terrible inept leadership of this City and the overpaid people who only think about their own coffers and pensions

THINK OF THE RESIDENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Item 16-F
August 27, 2024
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024

16.F.c
Packet Pg. 1788 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 1 David Yakobson
From: Noe Mendoza
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 7:05 PM
To: Council Mailbox; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Micah Akerson; Jenny Rogers; David White; Steven Johnson; Andrew Gomez; Lori Brown; John Smith; Ann Bowman; Greg Morena; Maryanne LaGuardia
Subject: Re: Recreation and Parks Commission Letter for Council Meeting 8-27-24 Attachments: Letter Re Recreation & Parks Commission for Council Meeting 8-27-24.pdf Hello,
I hope you have all had a wonderful weekend.

I have attached to this email a letter from the Recreation and Parks Commission to City Council for their meeting on August 27, 2024.

Thank you.

Noe Mendoza
Staff Assistant III
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024

16.F.c
Packet Pg. 1789 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Recreation and Parks Commission
August 26, 2024
Mayor Brock and City Council Members
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Recreation & Parks Commission
In reference to Items 16.F and 16.G
Council Meeting Tuesday, August 27
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1413 Esteemed Council Members,
Thank you for Council's continued robust discussion around the County Health Department's "Harm Reduction" programs in Santa Monica, including delivery of needles and "Safe Smoke Materials" by sub-contractors in three of our public parks.

At our Thursday, August 22, meeting of the Recreation & Parks Commission, the members present voted unanimously to once again reaffirm our objective of ending needle distribution at Reed, Tongva and Palisades Park. This is a repeat of past unanimous votes and previous letters to Council.

Additionally, we agreed that this and other paraphernalia hand-outs, such as glass smoking pipes, contribute to a practice of consumption "in place", and that the current program has been observed to support active, open-air drug use in our parks at all hours of the day and night, and in close proximity to children's play areas, community groups and recreation. This is not okay.

The Recreation & Parks Commission, under chair Lori Brown, sent its first letter to Council on the topic in June of 2022, asking specifically to remove what was then thought to be a needle exchange in Reed Park, and to relocate the program to existing brick-and-mortar facilities where related, supportive services are available.

Item 16-F
August 27, 2024
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024

16.F.c
Packet Pg. 1790 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity As an attachment to the current Item 16.F, you also have the September 14, 2022, letter from Mayor Himmelrich to the County Board of Supervisors asking the County to immediately bring the program indoors and out of our City parks. As the Mayor wrote at the time, "roughly 70% of Santa Monicans are renters, our community relies on the City’s parks and open spaces as they do not have access to private open space."
In the two years since, as details of this furtive program came to be widely understood by our community, the County has not changed course, even as overdose deaths have steadily climbed in Santa Monica, and despite increased public outcry and subsequent Council motions.

Since that time, the Recreation & Parks Commission has continued to engage deeply with this issue as a key component of its advocacy for improved park safety.

On February 15, 2024, the Recreation & Parks Commission hosted Dr. Gary Tsai, who gave an in-person presentation and answered questions about the County’s “Harm Reduction” program. We appreciate the visit, since it was the first time a County spokesperson had appeared to answer questions about needle distribution in a public forum in Santa Monica.

There were several key facts that came to light, which bear repeating:

1. This is not a needle exchange program. There is no one-for-one exchange of needles. By the County's own metrics, many more needles are going into our parks than are coming out of our parks. The risk to children, pets and City staff is unacceptable.

2. There is no site-specific data tracking the success or failure of the program in Santa Monica. Statistics proffered around overdose reversals or service referrals are entirely unsubstantiated, and in multiple meetings, the County has admitted that their metrics are modeled or estimated.

3. The only other park location in ALL of Los Angeles County where the Health Department contracts an open-air distribution of needles and pipes is MacArthur Park in Los Angeles. No other city or neighborhood is being asked to share this burden in their parks in this way.

Item 16-F
August 27, 2024
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024

16.F.c
Packet Pg. 1791 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity It's timely to mention that in this Sunday's 8/26 Los Angeles Times, columnist Steve Lopez writes about the unmitigated disaster that LA City and County policies at 35-acre MacArthur Park have meant to LA's Westlake neighborhood, the Los Angeles region's second-most dense neighborhood.

This award-winning journalist observed "a zombie-like scene of contorted people gathered in the northwest corner of the park, their bodies rigid from overdoses of fentanyl or other killer drugs."
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-08-24/column-langers-deliowner-is-starving-for-city-to-clean-up-macarthur-park-and-thinking-of-closing That apocalyptic vision could also regularly describe corners of our three Santa Monica parks, with just 5-acre Reed Park being the beating heart of Santa Monica's most dense neighborhood. A future Santa Monica with 9,000 more apartment units has only this to look forward to?
After the February 15 presentation by Dr. Tsai, there were several encouraging follow-up communications, but further efforts by our group to directly liaise with Dr. Tsai and his team on possible solutions were abruptly shut down in April.

Nevertheless, one or more of our commissioners have attended every public hearing the County has offered on the subject; though the meetings are usually announced at the last minute and with locations far out of our jurisdiction; including Van Nuys and Willowbrook. Questions submitted online mostly go unaddressed.

Questions posed in person are generally stone-walled or condescended to.

County officials seem visibly annoyed that Santa Monica people keep finding out about these meetings and attempt to participate.

Without hope that the County will alter course on their own, we ask once again that our City Council move to enhance our municipal codes and increase enforcement of already existing rules to not only bring an end to the distribution of drug paraphernalia in our parks, but also to actively remove repeat offenders of our city's existing no-smoking, anti-littering and anti-camping codes.

Item 16-F
August 27, 2024
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024

16.F.c
Packet Pg. 1792 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity As you consider items that seek to address needle and meth pipe distribution in our parks, please consider first and foremost the harm that is being done to our community by failing County policies and inadequate and irregularly enforced City statutes.

As Parks Commissioners, it is our great sadness that Tongva has become a dangerous asylum; a no-go area for residents and tourists alike. Palisades Park, once our proudest park, is now a daily spectacle of flagrant lawlessness. But worst of all, Reed Park … with its proximity to a K-12 school and a senior living facility; and within the park, a children's playground, community meeting rooms and the soon to be reopened Miles Playhouse … Reed Park most of all is failing to meet the needs of its neighbors, and as a magnet for illegal and anti-social behavior, spills over crime and disruption throughout the surrounding residential community.

So lastly, we unfortunately leave you with this picture of someone smoking meth just a few feet away from the door of a community room at Reed Park. This is happening just as a Narcotics Anonymous group is about to start their weeknight meeting. There is no calculus in which folks earnestly trying to shake their addiction must be subjected to this behavior in the name of "Harm Reduction".

Councilmembers, please find agreement amongst yourselves and take action to make our parks and public spaces "safe and clean" for our entire community.

Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Andrew Gomez, Vice Chair
Ann Bowman
Lori Brown
Maryanne LaGuardia
Greg Morena
John C. Smith
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024
Item 16-F
August 27, 2024

16.F.c
Packet Pg. 1793 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6576 : Local Control on Distribution of Syringes and Drug Paraphernalia) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 27, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.G
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmember de la Torre that the City Attorney and City Manager eliminate the distribution by the County or any County-affiliated, non County-affiliated, third party, and/or independent private entity, of all drug paraphernalia and equipment, including but not limited to any and all drugs, opioids, needles, syringes, glass pipes, straws, rolling paper, miniature spoons, etc., in our parks, other City-owned spaces and anywhere closer than 1,000 feet away from any school, other educational facility, church, senior center or senior living facility, YMCA/YWCA, or Boys and Girls Clubs. The only exception would be Narcan, which can help revive someone who is unresponsive. The terms of this item shall take effect immediately upon passage.

Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

16.G
Packet Pg. 1794
1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; David White Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: August 27th Agenda: Support items 10C-11A -- Opposed items 16F-16G Attachments: 2024-08 CC Agenda items- 10C-11A-16F-16G.pdf

EXTERNAL
Please see the attached letter in support of Agenda Items 10C and 11A and in opposition to Agenda Items 16F and 16G.

Item 16-G
August 27, 2024
Item 16-G
August 27, 2024

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1795 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6582 : Request de la Torre: Eliminate Distribution Drug Para./Equip)

August 27, 2024
RE: Agenda Items: 10C, 11A, 16F, 16G
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance and community human rights advocate are writing in support of Agenda Items 10C and 11A and in opposition to Agenda Items 16F and 16G.

Support — Agenda Item 10C:

Support – Agenda item 11A:

Santa Monica City CouncilAugust 27, 2024

Santa Monica City Council
August 27, 2024