Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, April 8, 2025 (part 7 of 7)

Public comments and input from the Resident Advisory Board, voucher participants, the Housing Commission, the public and the Housing Authority Responses to the comments
Public/RAB Member Comments: The Housing Authority should do more to accommodate homeless families and those at risk of becoming homeless.

Response: the SMHA has allocated 57 Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs) to a supportive housing development at 1413 Michigan Avenue for individuals experiencing homelessness. Additionally, SMHA has proposed expanding its Tier 1 priority to allow referrals from approved partners for vulnerable Santa Monica residents. More information about the City’s approach to addressing homelessness can be found on the Addressing Homelessness website. santamonica.gov - Addressing Homelessness
Public/RAB Member Comments: The proposed policy that allocates 50% of voucher attrition to Santa Monica residents referred by partner agencies does not mention how the workforce could benefit from a tiered system that includes employed individuals.

Response: SMHA already has a tiered system that prioritizes Santa Monica’s workforce. The proposed policy allocating 50% of voucher attrition specifically applies to Santa Monica residents referred by partner agencies who are experiencing homelessness. General Santa Monica residents and individuals working at least 25 hours per week in Santa Monica are classified as Tier 2 priority.

Public/RAB member comments on a Home Ownership Program: The Housing Authority should administer the Homeownership Program for HCV program participants as a way to assist those of low or extremely low income in purchasing a condo or house.

Response: The Housing Authority does not offer an HCV Homeownership program. Adding such a program would involve evaluating the associated regulations, assessing the feasibility of such a program given the gap between maximum voucher payment standards and real estate prices in Santa Monica, and determining the staffing and other resources needed to support the program. Currently the Housing Authority is focused on completing its core responsibilities according to HUD’s requirements and does not have resources that can be allocated to assessing the feasibility of new programs such as a homeownership program.

RAB member comment on funding: Funding should be provided for low -income residents to make repairs for longstanding maintenance issues, etc.

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1262 Attachment: Public Comments and Input (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan)

Page 2 of 4 ends

Response: The Housing Authority is currently funded to administer its voucher programs only and do not have additional funding to provide home repair grants. However, the Administrative Plan, Chapter 8: Housing Quality Standards and Rent Reasonableness, details the physical standards required of units occupied by Section 8 HCV-assisted families and identifies decisions about the acceptability of the unit that may be made by the family based upon the family’s preference. Chapter 8 also identifies life-threatening conditions that must be addressed on an expedited basis.

Public/RAB Member Comments: The Tier 2 list for workforce priority should include In-Home Support Services (IHSS) providers if their primary work is in Santa Monica.

Response: SMHA currently has a workforce priority for individuals who work a minimum of 25 hours per week in Santa Monica, provided they are not employed through a temporary agency or on a temporary assignment.

Public/RAB Member Comments: SMHA should hire additional staff to enhance customer service delivery.

Response: The SMHA's staffing levels are determined by available funding and aligned with HUD’s requirements. To better support the most vulnerable populations and improve housing outcomes, SMHA has created dedicated Housing Navigator position.

RAB members comments on Housing Quality Control Standards (HQS):
• The Housing Authority allow for interim inspection outside the annual inspections. • The Housing Authority should add an addendum to the recertification that allows the tenant to list any grievances with the landlord.

Response: The Housing Authority presently permits interim "Special" inspections, as detailed in the Administrative Plan, Chapter 8: Housing Quality Standards and Rent Reasonableness. Staff will persist in advising voucher holders of their tenant rights as outlined in the Chapter and will explore creating a form to address Housing Quality Standards (HQS) documentation issues.

RAB member comments on HQS inspections: Would like SMHA to define better define HQS Inspection guidelines.

Response: The Administrative Plan, Chapter 8: Housing Quality Standards and Rent Reasonableness, details the physical standards required of units occupied by Section 8 HCVassisted families and identifies decisions about the acceptability of the unit that may be made by the family based upon the family’s preference. Chapter 8 also identifies life-threatening conditions that must be addressed on an expedited basis.

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1263 Attachment: Public Comments and Input (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan)

Page 3 of 4 ends

Public/RAB Member Comments: Pages 9-16 of the Summary of Proposed Changes discuss owner violations and tenant relocation procedures that SMHA will follow. Voucher holders have the same just-cause protections, and the suggested clarification is:
"All PHA tenants have just-cause rights. If an owner is responsible for a housing quality or lifethreatening serious violation, the violation will be verified by a Housing Authority staff inspection and, if necessary, referred to Santa Monica and/or LA County Code Compliance for remediation."
Response: The suggested language aligns with SMHA’s current procedural process. SMHA does not hold tenants liable for owner-caused deficiencies but ensures appropriate steps are taken in accordance with inspection guidelines to address the issue. If a deficiency is identified, SMHA will take necessary action to ensure the issue is resolved and will notify the appropriate departments, including Code Enforcement, when required.

Public/RAB Member Comments: The current waitlist process would benefit from increased transparency, allowing the public to know and access their waitlist position in real time.

Response: The SMHA is unable to disclose individual waitlist positions, as placement is determined not only by the date and time of application but also by the priorities for which an applicant qualifies. The status of the 40,000+ individuals on the waitlist may shift based on eligibility factors such as living or working in Santa Monica. However, SMHA maintains records of application submission dates and can provide general information, including the total number of people on the waitlist and the date range of applications currently being processed.

Public/RAB Member Comments: SMHA needs to better manage its waitlist to provide greater access specifically for Santa Monica residents and to address the 40,000+ applicants currently on the list.

Response: SMHA is in the process of closing its waitlist in the future while continuing to process existing applicants. However, the waitlist will remain open for families and individuals who qualify for Tier 1 Priority, as outlined in Chapter 4 of the Administrative Plan.

RAB members comment on oversight Committee for landlords: RAB member would an oversight committee to hold owners and management companies accountable.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. The SMHA staff does not have the authority to establish landlord oversight committee. However, the Administrative Plan, Chapter 8: Housing Quality Standards and Rent Reasonableness, details the physical standards required of units occupied by Section 8 HCV-assisted families and identifies decisions about the acceptability of the unit that may be made by the family based upon the family’s preference. Additionally, the following resources depending on the issue:

Code Enforcement: santamonica.gov (smgov.net)

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1264 Attachment: Public Comments and Input (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan)

Page 4 of 4 ends

County Public Health Department: Online Form - Complaint Form (lacounty.gov) Legal Aid Foundation of LA: LAFLA: Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles | Justice • Equity • Hope
City Attorney’s Office: [email protected] RAB members comment: The SMHA should establish a structured Client Advisory Board (CAB) with officers, meetings, agendas, minutes, and scheduled meeting times to ensure voucher holders have a representative voice in program operations. Holding a voucher is a unique experience, often accompanied by stigma, which non-voucher holders may not fully understand. To assess program effectiveness, the City should survey voucher holders.

Response: Staff is in the process of developing a Client Advisory Board in accordance with City and federal requirements, while also incorporating feedback from the Housing Commission, the public, and voucher holders.

RAB members comment: While voucher holders are required to be respectful, there is no language ensuring they receive the same respect. This creates an imbalance, implying that voucher holders are subordinate to other parties in the housing contract. All parties should be treated equally.

Response: The SMHA is committed to treating all participants with dignity and respect. While program rules outline tenant responsibilities, we will review policies to ensure that expectations for mutual respect are clear for all parties.

RAB members comment: Letters sent to compliant participants use unnecessarily harsh language, which can instill fear, particularly in those who have experienced homelessness. This may not be the intended effect, but it results from a lack of input from a client advisory board.

Response: The SMHA strives to maintain clear and professional communication. We will review participant notices to ensure language remains informative and fair, without unnecessary severity, while still maintaining compliance with HUD regulations

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1265 Attachment: Public Comments and Input (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan)

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1266 Attachment: Public Comments and Input (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) 1 David Yakobson
From: Robert Rader <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Council Mailbox
Subject: Written comments on agenda for 4-8-2025 / Item 12-A Draft 5-year Housing Plan / comments by neighbor to current project on unlimited waiver of City requirements of development

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and City Council Members,
As a longtime advocate of housing, I am saddened to make the following comments, but the way the City is proceeding is to create a type of housing that is not compatible / sustainable with design and development standards that have long guided development in Santa Monica. I therefore feel I must note these problems with how the City StaƯ is currently overseeing housing development.

Specifically, I live on 20th Street directly north of 1931 Wilshire Blvd. (1907-1933 Wilshire Boulevard - 24ARB-0199:

Residential/Mixed-Use), a Cypress Equity project to put in an 8-story building that will block out almost all sunlight for much of the year for me. This was exemption to the daylight plane was apparently granted by StaƯ without any notice to neighbors, or consideration of its eƯects on neighbors. (Apparently, at least 5 other exemptions were similarly granted by StaƯ acting alone without notice or public input as follow: (a) Increased floor area ratio (F.A.R.) (floors 5-8); (b) Increased max building height; (c) Remove Daylight Plane; (d) Relief from studio market rate requirement; (e) Eliminate 3-bedroom unit requirement; and (f) Eliminate 3-bedroom aƯordable requirement.). It seems to me that a project that is proceeding under the Housing Accountability Act requires MORE review on those limits the City can enforce, not less.

THIS IS NOT HOW PUBLIC PROCESS OR DEVELOPMENT IN SANTA MONICA IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN! The comments by the Architectural Review Board on December 16, 2024 all pointed out the very poor design of this building, and the ARB requested a re-design. Instead of using the fact that the design violates many City policies, standard, and requirements to commence a negotiation with the developer to protect residents’ interests, the City StaƯ merely appears to be waiving these requirements. So, instead of a negotiation taking into account legitimate needs on both sides, residents appear to be ignored and the City seems dead set on giving away any of its leverage. From my attendance at the ARB meeting, the City StaƯ apparently feel that Council direction has been to ignore residents’ concerns. This must be corrected, and StaƯ should be directed to use its powers to grant exemptions to encourage good design that does not unfairly encroach on neighbors. We need to have a better procedure to protect the City and its residents from projects moving forward under the Housing Accountability Act so this is an issue that is broader than one project.

I would therefore like to strongly request that the City Council make the approval of the Housing Plan subject to StaƯ protecting residents (including procedural protections of notice and input but also substantive protections) so that new housing is not unfairly a burden on a limited number of residents. Further, any waivers should be rescinded if there is no final approved plan for development until this issue is vetted more fully and fairly. I am very concerned that what I observed for the building next to me has been the way the City StaƯ has treated all these projects based on its own belief that housing is always an unfettered good, regardless of its consequences to a vibrant, walkable neighborhood and its residents.

Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1267 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) 2 I appreciate these are tough issues. Nor do I object to housing. But the massive and unlimited nature of the projects I am seeing are giving me real pause for the sustainability and livability of Santa Monica. The solution, however, is not to sacrifice all resident concerns for developers desires to build more and bigger; that is why we have limits in the first place.

If for any reason this cannot be addressed in tonight’s hearing, then I request that you find the appropriate situation to do so, whether as a separate item or otherwise.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours,
Rob Rader
310-480-3229
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1268 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) 1 David Yakobson
From: Alyssa Kluge <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 11:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment | Agenda Item 12 — STOP Massive Development in Ocean Park (April 8, 2025)

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to strongly oppose Agenda Item 12 (4/8/2025) and the proposed development of massive, 7-8 story buildings in the parking lots behind Main Street in Ocean Park. This is one of the worst things that could happen to our neighborhood. Ocean Park is not just any part of Santa Monica — it is a historic, low-rise, beachside community, and Main Street is its heart. These outsized buildings will physically and permanently cast Main Street into darkness. By early afternoon, our neighborhood will be trapped in shadow, the sun blocked, the ocean breeze cut off, and the open, coastal feel that draws locals and visitors alike completely erased. Ocean Park’s unique charm will be swallowed up by concrete walls towering over our small businesses and homes.

Let’s be clear: this project will not bring meaningful affordability. Ocean Park already is a mixed-income neighborhood, and the city has already exceeded its housing obligations by thousands of units. In my building alone — a 16-unit apartment property — there are four young families, four sets of seniors, four sets of mid-30s and mid-40s couples, and four mixed families — we are diverse, mixed, and representative of the fabric of the community. This project will bring years of disruptive construction, suffocating traffic on Main Street and Neilson Way, and the destruction of essential parking that our local businesses rely on daily to survive. Once these businesses close, they are not coming back. We cannot undo the damage once the neighborhood is buried under oversized developments.

There are better solutions. Use the airport land — vast, available, and without the irreversible harm this project will cause. But please, do not allow this reckless, destructive plan to move forward. Ocean Park deserves to be preserved, not sacrificed.

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

Thrive Mark et
Alyssa Kluge (she/her)
Director of Communications
517-803-5158
To
help
prot
ect
you
r
priv
acy,
Micr
osof
To
help
prot
ect
you
r
priv
acy,
Micr
osof
To
help
prot
ect
you
r
priv
acy,
Micr
osof
To
help
prot
ect
you
r
priv
acy,
Micr
osof
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

B C orporation
Thrive Market is proud to be the largest grocer in
the US to receive the B Corp Certification
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1269 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) 1 David Yakobson
From: Mathew Millen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 4:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: April 8, item 12A
Attachments: Item11A.pdf; AFFH1.pdf

EXTERNAL
These are previous comments I am resubmitting them on item 12A the proposed PLAN violates State of California Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing laws and Federal fair housing law. The City proposals do NOTHING to overcome patterns of segregation in the City that dumps low income housing in the Pico Neighborhood....
mathew millen
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1270 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1274 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1275 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1276 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Proposed PHA Plans
Housing Authority Board
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Overview
Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA)
• 6 Rental Assistance Programs
• 1,750+ Participants
Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan Fiscal Year (FY)
2025-26

1. Proposed 5-Year Plan FY 2025-2030

2. Annual Plan FY 2025-2026
• Public Comments and Input

3. Draft Administrative Plan for FY 2025-2026
• Summary of Proposed Discretionary Policy Changes
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) PHA Plan
Opportunities for this PHA Plan

1. Proposed 5-Year Plan FY 2025-2030
• Expand Supportive Housing Solutions
• Enhance Access to Voucher Programs
• Promote Excellence and Innovation in Service Delivery

2. Draft Administrative Plan for FY 2025-2026
• Tier 1 Santa Monica Priority
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Engagement
Public Input Public Comment Period
• January 10, 2025 – February 25, 2025
• Email/Mail Notices on
- December 30, 2024
- January 7, 2025
- January 22, 2025
• Zoom Workshop January 8, 2025
• Live Workshop January 8, 2025
• Presentation at the Housing Commission February 6, 2025 • Presentation and Approval for the Housing Authority Board April 8, 2025 Access
• Website
• Email
• Meetings
• Mail
• Phone
• Office
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Timeline
PHA Plan Process
• HUD Submission by April 17, 2025 • Effective July 1, 2025 • Full HOTMA compliance by June 1, 2025 • Chapters 6, 7, and 11
Requirements
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) Conclusion
Staff recommends

1. Hold a public hearing and receive public comment;

2. Adopt the Santa Monica Housing Authority 5-Year Plan Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 for FY 2025-2030;

3. Adopt the FY 2025-2026 Annual Plan for the previous 5-Year Plan FY 2020-2025;

4. Adopt the FY 2025-2026 Santa Monica Housing Authority Administrative Plan;

5. Authorize the Submission of the FY 2025-2026 PHA plan which consists of the 5-Year Plan FY 2025, the Annual Plan FY 2025-26, and Administrative Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and

6. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

The Santa Monica Housing Authority Board
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025
Item 12-A
April 8, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: Power Point Presentation (6708 : SMHA 5-Year Plan / SMHA PHA Plan) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 8, 2025
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 rescind the March 25, 2025, appointment of Yolanda Mickens to the Housing Authority Board; and, consider new appointment to the vacancy on the Board with a term ending June 30, 2026 Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.A
Packet Pg. 1291
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Housing Authority Board
Name Application Date
07/11/2024
07/22/2024
07/30/2024
07/09/2024
07/20/2024
07/29/2024
07/10/2024
02/17/2025
08/08/2024
12/16/2024
07/10/2024
07/08/2024
08/27/2024
07/22/2024
Bruce, Alisa
Grayson, Stephanie D.

Harper, Carmel C.

Nolan, Wendy
Phillips, Belinda L.

Prina, Liliana N.

Susman, Matthew B.*
Giolito, Robert S.*
Gordon, Nancy*
King, Dominique E.*
Lilly, Christine M.*
Shadchina, Larissa*
Weston, Emily*
White, Paula M.*
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 14
*Currently serves on the Disabilities Commission
*Not eligible or applying for this seat

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: Applicant List (7021 : 16.A. Rescind Housing Authority Board Appointment - Yolanda Mickens (5 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 8, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request by Mayor Negrete and Councilmember Zwick for the City Attorney and City Manager to analyze using Measure K/PSK funds to aggregate and produce a dashboard on the City’s website for the public to view the CAO criminal prosecution data.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

16.B
Packet Pg. 1293
1 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:54 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Cc: Bruce Leddy; Nancy Coleman
Subject: Items 16B., 16C., 16D. - SUPPORT

EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

TO: Mayor Negrete and City Council Members
RE: Items 16B., 16C., 16D./April 8th, 2025 - SUPPORT
The Board of NOMA supports Items 16B., 16C., and 16D. and recommends that Council pass them. These are practical, applicable ideas that will have a positive effect on the City, improving government transparency and aiding in public safety.

We urge you to vote in support of these items.

The Board of NOMA
NOMA'S Next Meeting: THUR. May 1st
at 7PM on ZOOM
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81526517066
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 16-B
April 8, 2025
Item 16-B
April 8, 2025

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: Written Comments (7028 : Analyze Measure K/PSK Funds) 2 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:48 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 4/8/25 -- Items 16-B, 16-C and 16-D - support

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro tem Torosis and City Council members, Please support agenda items 16B, 16C, and 16D tonight.
16B) I support the proposal to look into funds for creating a public dashboard on the city's website providing residents access to the City Attorney's Office criminal prosecution data. This initiative would enhance transparency, allowing community members to better understand prosecution patterns, case outcomes, and resource allocation. In an era where data-driven governance is essential, this dashboard would empower residents to engage more meaningfully in public safety discussions and hold our officials accountable. Similar systems in other municipalities have strengthened community trust and provided valuable insights for policy improvements.
16C) I support exploring the implementation of a nighttime curfew for Santa Monica State Beach. Our beautiful coastline should be a safe environment for all residents and visitors. Establishing reasonable evening closure hours would help address growing concerns about overnight encampments, illegal activities, and public safety incidents that strain our police resources and create unsafe conditions. This measure, already successfully implemented at many California beaches, could significantly improve public safety while allowing our maintenance crews better access for beach cleaning and preservation. I urge the council to pursue this common-sense approach that balances public access with the wellbeing of our community.
16D) I support the proposal to study remote work data among Santa Monica city employees. This research would provide valuable insights into both utilization patterns and productivity metrics, helping our city make evidence-based decisions about flexible work arrangements. Understanding which departments and functions thrive remotely versus those requiring in-person presence could optimize our workforce strategy, potentially reducing office space costs while maintaining or improving service quality. In today's evolving workplace landscape, such analysis would ensure Santa Monica remains an employer of choice while responsibly managing public resources.

Thank you,
Heather Thomason
Item 16-B
April 8, 2025
Item 16-B
April 8, 2025

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: Written Comments (7028 : Analyze Measure K/PSK Funds) 1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:19 AM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 4/8/25 -- Items 16-B, 16-C and 16-D - SUPPORT public dashboard of CAO criminal prosecution data, nighttime curfew of State Beach w/ options of closure and requested information concerning the City's Hybrid Workplace Policy

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council -
As a resident who wants more transparency and accountability from our city, I support Items 16B, 16C and 16D.

It is refreshing to see the city council focus on operational, safety and productivity reporting. A data and evidence based management approach is the direction the City Council needs to take. This along with short- and long-term cost benefit analyses will help make decision making easier and allow residents to understand these decisions better. This city has become too divided by a competition of "good intentions" when it's the results that should matter. This is what we expect our City Council to focus on; a balanced view, analyses of data and trends and recommendations of the broad spectrum of issues and opportunities the city faces.

This means trying something different when what we are doing doesn't work, no matter how invested in the current idea we may be. To that end, closing the beach at night is worth trying.

Finally, Santa Monica has the most expensive municipal building in the history of the United States.

The city hall annex was built over the objection of residents and sold a as a place staff would come together to work and serve the public. That isn't happening when nobody is there. Requiring municipal employees to come back to the office so they can interface directly with the people they serve is an important and necessary step. Perhaps it will help fulfill our commitment to local hiring.

Thanks,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 16-B
April 8, 2025
Item 16-B
April 8, 2025

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: Written Comments (7028 : Analyze Measure K/PSK Funds) 2 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting - 4/8/25 -- Items 16-B, 16-C and 16-D - Support public dashboard of CAO criminal prosecution data, nighttime curfew of State Beach w/ options of closure and requested information concerning the City's Hybrid Workplace Policy

EXTERNAL
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
[email protected]
Begin forwarded message:

From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Date: April 8, 2025 at 9:11:11 AM PDT
To: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting - 4/8/25 -- Items 16-B, 16-C and 16-D - Support public dashboard of CAO criminal prosecution data, nighttime curfew of State Beach w/ options of closure and requested information concerning the City's Hybrid Workplace Policy
Please forward to [email protected]. Our action alert pulled from another one and it had the wrong city email. Thanks.

Nikki Kolhoff
[email protected]
On Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 08:59:29 AM PDT, Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
As a management consultant interested in transparency and ongoing, dynamic information I applaud the efforts by Mayor Negrete and council members Zwick and Natalya for supporting one or all of the above items. It is refreshing to see the city council focus on operational, safety and productivity reporting. A data and evidence based management approach is the direction the City Council needs to take. This along with short- and long-term cost benefit analyses will help make decision making easier and allow residents to understand these decisions better. Again, I am encouraged to see some of the City Council interested in reporting and hopefully proactively acting on data and trends that can improve for residents the operational, safety and productivity aspects of the city. This is what we expect our City Council to focus on; a balanced view, analyses of data and trends and recommendations of the broad spectrum of issues and opportunities the city faces.

Item 16-B
April 8, 2025
Item 16-B
April 8, 2025

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: Written Comments (7028 : Analyze Measure K/PSK Funds) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 8, 2025
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 Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers Zwick and Zernitskaya that the City Council direct the City Manager and City Attorney, due to public safety concerns, to explore the ability of the City of Santa Monica to establish a night time curfew for Santa Monica State Beach with California State Parks and the California Coastal Commission and report back to Council with options for closure.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

16.C
Packet Pg. 1298
1 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:54 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Cc: Bruce Leddy; Nancy Coleman
Subject: Items 16B., 16C., 16D. - SUPPORT

EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

We urge you to vote in support of these items.

The Board of NOMA
NOMA'S Next Meeting: THUR. May 1st
at 7PM on ZOOM
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81526517066
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 16-C
April 8, 2025
Item 16-C
April 8, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: Written Comments (7029 : Beach Curfew) 2 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:48 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 4/8/25 -- Items 16-B, 16-C and 16-D - support

Thank you,
Heather Thomason
Item 16-C
April 8, 2025
Item 16-C
April 8, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: Written Comments (7029 : Beach Curfew) 1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:19 AM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 4/8/25 -- Items 16-B, 16-C and 16-D - SUPPORT public dashboard of CAO criminal prosecution data, nighttime curfew of State Beach w/ options of closure and requested information concerning the City's Hybrid Workplace Policy

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council -
As a resident who wants more transparency and accountability from our city, I support Items 16B, 16C and 16D.

This means trying something different when what we are doing doesn't work, no matter how invested in the current idea we may be. To that end, closing the beach at night is worth trying.

Finally, Santa Monica has the most expensive municipal building in the history of the United States.

Thanks,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 16-C
April 8, 2025
Item 16-C
April 8, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: Written Comments (7029 : Beach Curfew) 2 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting - 4/8/25 -- Items 16-B, 16-C and 16-D - Support public dashboard of CAO criminal prosecution data, nighttime curfew of State Beach w/ options of closure and requested information concerning the City's Hybrid Workplace Policy

EXTERNAL
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
[email protected]
Begin forwarded message:

Nikki Kolhoff
[email protected]
On Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 08:59:29 AM PDT, Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]> wrote:

Item 16-C
April 8, 2025
Item 16-C
April 8, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: Written Comments (7029 : Beach Curfew) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 8, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request by Mayor Negrete and Councilmember Zwick to build on direction provided by Council at the March 8, 2025 budget workshop to direct the City Manager and City Attorney to provide information to the Council concerning the City’s Hybrid Workplace Policy, including what positions are permitted to do hybrid work, how many and to what extent employees utilize hybrid work, and how the city ensures its remote workforce remains collaborative, productive, and responsive to residents’ needs, and provide information on what the hybrid work policies are for comparable jurisdictions, and report back on changes the city has made to its policy based on this review.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

16.D
Packet Pg. 1303
1 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:54 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Cc: Bruce Leddy; Nancy Coleman
Subject: Items 16B., 16C., 16D. - SUPPORT

EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

We urge you to vote in support of these items.

The Board of NOMA
NOMA'S Next Meeting: THUR. May 1st
at 7PM on ZOOM
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81526517066
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 16-D
April 8, 2025
Item 16-D
April 8, 2025

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: Written Comments (7030 : Hybrid Workplace Policy) 2 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:48 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 4/8/25 -- Items 16-B, 16-C and 16-D - support

Thank you,
Heather Thomason
Item 16-D
April 8, 2025
Item 16-D
April 8, 2025

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: Written Comments (7030 : Hybrid Workplace Policy) 1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:19 AM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 4/8/25 -- Items 16-B, 16-C and 16-D - SUPPORT public dashboard of CAO criminal prosecution data, nighttime curfew of State Beach w/ options of closure and requested information concerning the City's Hybrid Workplace Policy

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council -
As a resident who wants more transparency and accountability from our city, I support Items 16B, 16C and 16D.

This means trying something different when what we are doing doesn't work, no matter how invested in the current idea we may be. To that end, closing the beach at night is worth trying.

Finally, Santa Monica has the most expensive municipal building in the history of the United States.

Thanks,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 16-D
April 8, 2025
Item 16-D
April 8, 2025

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: Written Comments (7030 : Hybrid Workplace Policy) 2 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting - 4/8/25 -- Items 16-B, 16-C and 16-D - Support public dashboard of CAO criminal prosecution data, nighttime curfew of State Beach w/ options of closure and requested information concerning the City's Hybrid Workplace Policy

EXTERNAL
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
[email protected]
Begin forwarded message:

Nikki Kolhoff
[email protected]
On Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 08:59:29 AM PDT, Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]> wrote:

Item 16-D
April 8, 2025
Item 16-D
April 8, 2025

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1307 Attachment: Written Comments (7030 : Hybrid Workplace Policy) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 8, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmember Zwick that the City Council approve the City taking a support position on SB 79 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development and direct the City Manager to notify the City’s contract lobbyist and ensure a letter stating the City’s position on the legislation is prepared to inform state Assemblymember Rick Zbur and state Senator Ben Allen. (Attachment: SB 79 text)
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. SB 79
B. Written Comments

16.E
Packet Pg. 1308
SHARE THIS: Date Published: 03/05/2025 09:00 PM
SENATE BILL NO. 79
SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. (2025-2026) AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 05, 2025
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Senator Wiener
January 15, 2025
An act to amend Section 54221 of, and to add Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155) to Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, and to add Section 21080.26.5 to the Public Resources Code, relating to land use.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 79, as amended, Wiener. Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. (1) Existing law prescribes requirements for the disposal of surplus land by a local agency. Existing law defines “surplus land” for these purposes to mean land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use. Existing law defines “agency’s use” for these purposes to include land that is being used for agency work or operations, as provided. Existing law exempts from this definition of “agency’s use” certain commercial or industrial uses, except that in the case of a local agency that is a district, except a local agency whose primary purpose or mission is to supply the public with a transportation system, “agency’s use” may include commercial or industrial uses or activities, as specified.

This bill would additionally include land leased to support public transit operations in the definition of “agency’s use,” as described above. The bill would also revise the definition of “agency’s use” with respect to commercial or industrial uses to instead provide that a district or a public transit operator may use land for commercial or industrial uses or activities, as described above.
(2) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints that are relevant to the meeting of these needs, including an inventory of land suitable for residential development, as provided. Existing law, for the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified, and requires the appropriate council of local governments, or the department for cities and counties without a council of governments, to adopt a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each locality in the region.

Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites 4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 1/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, requires a local agency that proposes to disapprove a housing development project, as defined, or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density to base its decision on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that specified conditions exist if that project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete. The act authorizes the applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce, as provided, and provides for penalties if the court finds that the local agency is in violation of specified provisions of the act.

This bill would require that a residential development proposed within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development (TOD) stop, as defined, be an allowed use on any site zoned for residential, mixed, commercial, or light industrial development, if the development complies with applicable requirements, as specified. The bill would establish requirements concerning height limits, density, and floor area ratio in accordance with a development’s proximity to specified tiers of TOD stops, as provided. The bill would provide that a local government that denies a project meeting the requirements of these provisions located in a high-resource area, as defined, would be presumed in violation of the Housing Accountability Act, as specified, and liable for penalties, as provided. The bill would specify that the a development proposed pursuant to these provisions is eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to specified law, except that the bill would exempt a project under these provisions from specified requirements under that law.

The bill would require a proposed development to comply with specified requirements under existing law relating to the demolition of existing residential units. The bill would also authorize a transit agency to adopt objective standards for both residential and commercial development proposed pursuant to these provisions if the development would be constructed on land owned by the transit agency or on which the transit agency has a permanent operating easement, provided that the objective standards allow for the same or greater development intensity as allowed by local standards or applicable state law.

The bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to oversee compliance with the bill’s provisions, including, but not limited to, promulgating specified standards relating to the inventory of land included within a county’s or city’s housing element. The bill would permit a local government to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions, as provided, and would require the local government to submit a copy of this ordinance to the department within 60 days of adoption and the department to review the ordinance for compliance, as specified. If the department finds an ordinance is out of compliance, and a local government does not take specified steps to address compliance, the bill would require the department to notify the local government in writing and authorize the department to notify the Attorney General, as provided.

The bill would define various terms for its purposes and make related findings and declarations.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (3) Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA, until January 1, 2030, exempts from its requirements certain transportation-related projects if specified requirements are met, as provided. CEQA includes within these exempt transportation-related projects a public project for the institution or increase of bus rapid transit, bus, or light rail service, or other passenger rail service, that will be exclusively used by low-emission or zero-emission vehicles, on existing public rights-of-way or existing highway rights-of-way.

This bill would exempt from CEQA a public or private residential, commercial, or mixed-used project that, at the time the project application is filed, is located entirely or principally on land owned by a public transit agency, or fully or partially encumbered by an existing operating easement in favor of a public transit agency, and meets specified requirements.

The bill would provide that, for a project that requires the construction of new passenger rail storage and maintenance facilities at a publicly or privately owned offsite location distinct from the principal project site, that project would be considered a wholly separate project from the project described in these provisions and shall not be exempt from CEQA. (4) By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each city, county, or city and county to prepare and adopt a general 4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 2/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) plan for its jurisdiction that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Under existing law, a part of the housing element is an assessment of housing needs, which includes the locality’s share of the regional housing need. Under existing law, the appropriate council of local governments, or for cities without a council of governments, the Department of Housing and Community Development, adopts a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each locality in the region. Existing law requires the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to adopt by ordinance transit-oriented development (TOD) zoning standards for each station that establish minimum zoning requirements for height, density, parking, and floor area ratio that apply to an eligible TOD project, as provided, and authorizes developers of certain eligible TOD projects to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would make housing more affordable for California families, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and enhance public transit systems by, among other things, requiring the upzoning of land near rail stations and rapid bus lines to encourage transit-oriented development. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: noyes Local Program: noyes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 54221 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54221. As used in this article, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) (1) “Local agency” means every city, whether organized under general law or by charter, county, city and county, district, including school, sewer, water, utility, and local and regional park districts of any kind or class, joint powers authority, successor agency to a former redevelopment agency, housing authority, or other political subdivision of this state and any instrumentality thereof that is empowered to acquire and hold real property. (2) The Legislature finds and declares that the term “district” as used in this article includes all districts within the state, including, but not limited to, all special districts, sewer, water, utility, and local and regional park districts, and any other political subdivision of this state that is a district, and therefore the changes in paragraph (1) made by the act adding this paragraph that specify that the provisions of this article apply to all districts, including school, sewer, water, utility, and local and regional park districts of any kind or class, are declaratory of, and not a change in, existing law.
(b) (1) “Surplus land” means land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use. Land shall be declared either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land,” as supported by written findings, before a local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency’s policies or procedures. A local agency, on an annual basis, may declare multiple parcels as “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land.” (2) “Surplus land” includes land held in the Community Redevelopment Property Trust Fund pursuant to Section 34191.4 of the Health and Safety Code and land that has been designated in the long-range property management plan approved by the Department of Finance pursuant to Section 34191.5 of the Health and Safety Code, either for sale or for future development, but does not include any specific disposal of land to an identified entity described in the plan.
(3) Nothing in this article prevents a local agency from obtaining fair market value for the disposition of surplus land consistent with Section 54226.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency is not required to make a declaration at a public meeting for land that is “exempt surplus land” pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), (E), (K), (L), or (Q) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) if the local agency identifies the land in a notice that is published and available for public comment, including notice to the entities identified in subdivision (a) of Section 54222, at least 30 days before the exemption takes effect. (c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), “agency’s use” shall include, but not be limited to, land that is being used, or is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the local agency’s governing board, for agency work or operations, including, but not limited to, utility sites, property owned by a port that is used to support logistics uses, watershed property, land being used for conservation purposes, land for demonstration, exhibition, or educational purposes related to greenhouse gas emissions, sites for broadband equipment or wireless facilities, land leased to support public transit operations, and buffer sites near sensitive governmental uses, including, but not limited to, waste disposal sites, and wastewater treatment plants. “Agency’s use” by a local agency that is a district shall also include land disposed for uses described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). (2) (A) “Agency’s use” shall not include commercial or industrial uses or activities, including nongovernmental retail, entertainment, or office development. Property disposed of for the sole purpose of investment or generation of revenue shall not be considered necessary for the agency’s use. 4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 3/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) (B) In the case of a local agency that is a district, excepting those whose primary mission or purpose is to supply the public with a transportation system, district or a public transit operator, “agency’s use” may include commercial or industrial uses or activities, including nongovernmental retail, entertainment, or office development or be for the sole purpose of investment or generation of revenue if the agency’s governing body takes action in a public meeting declaring that the use of the site will do one of the following:
(i) Directly further the express purpose of agency work or operations. (ii) Be expressly authorized by a statute governing the local agency, provided the district complies with Section 54233.5 if applicable.
(d) (1) “Dispose” means either of the following:
(A) The sale of the surplus land.
(B) The entering of a lease for surplus land, which is for a term longer than 15 years, inclusive of any extension or renewal options included in the terms of the initial lease, entered into on or after January 1, 2024. (2) “Dispose” shall not mean either of the following:
(A) The entering of a lease for surplus land, which is for a term of 15 years or less, inclusive of any extension or renewal options included in the terms of the initial lease. (B) The entering of a lease for surplus land on which no development or demolition will occur, regardless of the term of the lease.
(e) “Open-space purposes” means the use of land for public recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, or conservation or use of natural resources.
(f) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), “exempt surplus land” means any of the following:
(A) Surplus land that is transferred pursuant to Section 25539.4 or 37364. (B) Surplus land that is less than one-half acre in area and is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low- and moderate-income housing purposes. (C) Surplus land that a local agency is exchanging for another property necessary for the agency’s use. “Property” may include easements necessary for the agency’s use.
(D) Surplus land that a local agency is transferring to another local, state, or federal agency, or to a third-party intermediary for future dedication for the receiving agency’s use, or to a federally recognized California Indian tribe.

If the surplus land is transferred to a third-party intermediary, the receiving agency’s use must be contained in a legally binding agreement at the time of transfer to the third-party intermediary. (E) Surplus land that is a former street, right-of-way, or easement, and is conveyed to an owner of an adjacent property.
(F) (i) Surplus land that is to be developed for a housing development, which may have ancillary commercial ground floor uses, that restricts 100 percent of the residential units to persons and families of low or moderate income, with at least 75 percent of the residential units restricted to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, with an affordable sales price or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50052.5 or 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for 55 years for rental housing, 45 years for ownership housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands, unless a local ordinance or a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer period of affordability, and in no event shall the maximum affordable sales price or rent level be higher than 20 percent below the median market rents or sales prices for the neighborhood in which the site is located. (ii) The requirements of clause (i) shall be contained in a covenant or restriction recorded against the surplus land at the time of sale that shall run with the land and be enforceable against any owner who violates the covenant or restriction and each successor in interest who continues the violation. (G) (i) Surplus land that is subject to a local agency’s open, competitive solicitation or that is put to open, competitive bid by a local agency, provided that all entities identified in subdivision (a) of Section 54222 will be invited to participate in the process, for a housing or a mixed-use development that is more than one acre and less than 10 acres in area, consisting of either a single parcel, or two or more adjacent or non-adjacent parcels combined, that includes not less than 300 residential units, and that restricts at least 25 percent of the residential units to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, with an affordable sales price or an affordable rent, as defined in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for 55 years for rental housing, 45 years for ownership housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on 4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 4/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1312 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) tribal trust lands, unless a local ordinance or a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer period of affordability.
(ii) The requirements of clause (i) shall be contained in a covenant or restriction recorded against the surplus land at the time of sale that shall run with the land and be enforceable against any owner who violates the covenant or restriction and each successor in interest who continues the violation. (H) (i) Surplus land totaling 10 or more acres, consisting of either a single parcel, or two or more adjacent or nonadjacent parcels combined for disposition to one or more buyers pursuant to a plan or ordinance adopted by the legislative body of the local agency, or a state statute. That surplus land shall be subject to a local agency’s open, competitive solicitation process or put out to open, competitive bid by a local agency, provided that all entities identified in subdivision (a) of Section 54222 will be invited to participate in the process for a housing or mixed-use development.
(ii) The aggregate development shall include the greater of the following:
(I) Not less than 300 residential units.
(II) A number of residential units equal to 10 times the number of acres of the surplus land or 10,000 residential units, whichever is less.
(iii) At least 25 percent of the residential units shall be restricted to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, with an affordable sales price or an affordable rent pursuant to Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for a minimum of 55 years for rental housing, 45 years for ownership housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands, unless a local ordinance or a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer period of affordability.
(iv) If nonresidential development is included in the development pursuant to this subparagraph, at least 25 percent of the total planned units affordable to lower income households shall be made available for lease or sale and permitted for use and occupancy before or at the same time with every 25 percent of nonresidential development made available for lease or sale and permitted for use and occupancy. (v) A violation of this subparagraph is subject to the penalties described in Section 54230.5. Those penalties are in addition to any remedy a court may order for violation of this subparagraph. A local agency shall only dispose of land pursuant to this subparagraph through a disposition and development agreement that includes an indemnification clause that provides that if an action occurs after disposition violates this subparagraph, the person or entity that acquired the property shall be liable for the penalties. (vi) The requirements of clauses (i) to (v), inclusive, shall be contained in a covenant or restriction recorded against the surplus land at the time of sale that shall run with the land and be enforceable against any owner who violates the covenant or restriction and each successor in interest who continues the violation. (I) A mixed-use development, which may include more than one publicly owned parcel, that meets all of the following conditions:
(i) The development restricts at least 25 percent of the residential units to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, with an affordable sales price or an affordable rent, as defined in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for 55 years for rental housing, 45 years for ownership housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands, unless a local ordinance or a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer period of affordability.
(ii) At least 50 percent of the square footage of the new construction associated with the development is designated for residential use.
(iii) The development is not located in an urbanized area, as defined in Section 21094.5 of the Public Resources Code.
(J) (i) Surplus land that is subject to a valid legal restriction that is not imposed by the local agency and that makes housing prohibited, unless there is a feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the prohibition on the site. A declaration of exemption pursuant to this subparagraph shall be supported by documentary evidence establishing the valid legal restriction. For the purposes of this section, “documentary evidence” includes, but is not limited to, a contract, agreement, deed restriction, statute, regulation, or other writing that documents the valid legal restriction. (ii) Valid legal restrictions include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 5/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1313 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) (I) Existing constraints under ownership rights or contractual rights or obligations that prevent the use of the property for housing, if the rights or obligations were agreed to prior to September 30, 2019. (II) Conservation or other easements or encumbrances that prevent housing development. (III) Existing leases, or other contractual obligations or restrictions, if the terms were agreed to prior to September 30, 2019.
(IV) Restrictions imposed by the source of funding that a local agency used to purchase a property, provided that both of the following requirements are met:
(ia) The restrictions limit the use of those funds to purposes other than housing. (ib) The proposed disposal of surplus land meets a use consistent with that purpose. (iii) Valid legal restrictions that would make housing prohibited do not include either of the following:
(I) An existing nonresidential land use designation on the surplus land. (II) Covenants, restrictions, or other conditions on the property rendered void and unenforceable by any other law, including, but not limited to, Section 714.6 of the Civil Code. (iv) Feasible methods to mitigate or avoid a valid legal restriction on the site do not include a requirement that the local agency acquire additional property rights or property interests belonging to third parties. (K) Surplus land that was granted by the state in trust to a local agency or that was acquired by the local agency for trust purposes by purchase or exchange, and for which disposal of the land is authorized or required subject to conditions established by statute.
(L) Land that is subject to either of the following, unless compliance with this article is expressly required:
(i) Section 17388, 17515, 17536, 81192, 81397, 81399, 81420, or 81422 of the Education Code. (ii) Part 14 (commencing with Section 53570) of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code. (M) Surplus land that is a former military base that was conveyed by the federal government to a local agency, and is subject to Article 8 (commencing with Section 33492.125) of Chapter 4.5 of Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, provided that all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The former military base has an aggregate area greater than five acres, is expected to include a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, and is expected to include no fewer than 1,400 residential units upon completion of development or redevelopment of the former military base. (ii) The affordability requirements for residential units shall be governed by a settlement agreement entered into prior to September 1, 2020. Furthermore, at least 25 percent of the initial 1,400 residential units developed shall be restricted to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, with an affordable sales price or an affordable rent, as defined in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for 55 years for rental housing, 45 years for ownership housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands, unless a local ordinance or a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer period of affordability. (iii) Before disposition of the surplus land, the agency adopts written findings that the land is exempt surplus land pursuant to this subparagraph.
(iv) Before disposition of the surplus land, the recipient has negotiated a project labor agreement consistent with the local agency’s project stabilization agreement resolution, as adopted on February 2, 2021, and any succeeding ordinance, resolution, or policy, regardless of the length of the agreement between the local agency and the recipient.
(v) The agency includes in the annual report required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400 the status of development of residential units on the former military base, including the total number of residential units that have been permitted and what percentage of those residential units are restricted for persons and families of low or moderate income, or lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

A violation of this subparagraph is subject to the penalties described in Section 54230.5. Those penalties are in addition to any remedy a court may order for violation of this subparagraph or the settlement agreement. (N) Real property that is used by a district for an agency’s use expressly authorized in subdivision (c). 4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 6/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1314 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) (O) Land that has been transferred before June 30, 2019, by the state to a local agency pursuant to Section 32667 of the Streets and Highways Code and has a minimum planned residential density of at least 100 dwelling units per acre, and includes 100 or more residential units that are restricted to persons and families of low or moderate income, with an affordable sales price or an affordable rent, as defined in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for 55 years for rental housing, 45 years for ownership housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands, unless a local ordinance or a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer period of affordability. For purposes of this subparagraph, not more than 20 percent of the affordable units may be restricted to persons and families of moderate income and at least 80 percent of the affordable units must be restricted to lower income households as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(P) (i) Land that meets the following conditions:
(I) Land that is subject to a sectional planning area document that meets both of the following:
(ia) The sectional planning area was adopted prior to January 1, 2019. (ib) The sectional planning area document is consistent with county and city general plans applicable to the land.
(II) The land identified in the adopted sectional planning area document was dedicated prior to January 1, 2019.
(III) On January 1, 2019, the parcels on the land met at least one of the following conditions:
(ia) The land was subject to an irrevocable offer of dedication of fee interest requiring the land to be used for a specified purpose.
(ib) The land was acquired through a land exchange subject to a land offer agreement that grants the land’s original owner the right to repurchase the land acquired by the local agency pursuant to the agreement if the land will not be developed in a manner consistent with the agreement. (ic) The land was subject to a grant deed specifying that the property shall be used for educational uses and limiting other types of uses allowed on the property. (IV) At least 25 percent of the units are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable rent, as defined by Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable housing cost, as defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units, unless a local ordinance or a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer period of affordability.
(V) The land is developed at an average density of at least 10 units per acre, calculated with respect to the entire sectional planning area.
(VI) No more than 25 percent of the nonresidential square footage identified in the sectional planning area document receives its first certificate of occupancy before at least 25 percent of the residential square footage identified in the sectional planning area document has received its first certificate of occupancy. (VII) No more than 50 percent of the nonresidential square footage identified in the sectional planning area document receives its first certificate of occupancy before at least 50 percent of the residential square footage identified in the sectional planning area document has received its first certificate of occupancy. (VIII) No more than 75 percent of the nonresidential square footage identified in the sectional planning area document shall receive its first certificate of occupancy before at least 75 percent of the residential square footage identified in the sectional planning area document has received its first certificate of occupancy. (ii) The local agency includes in the annual report required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400 the status of development, including the total square footage of the residential and nonresidential development, the number of residential units that have been permitted, and what percentage of those residential units are restricted for persons and families of low or moderate income, or lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(iii) The Department of Housing and Community Development may request additional information from the agency regarding land disposed of pursuant to this subparagraph. (iv) At least 30 days prior to disposing of land declared “exempt surplus land,” a local agency shall provide the Department of Housing and Community Development a written notification of its declaration and findings in a form prescribed by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Within 30 days of receipt of the 4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 7/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1315 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) written notification and findings, the department shall notify the local agency if the department has determined that the local agency is in violation of this article. A local agency that fails to submit the written notification and findings shall be liable for a civil penalty pursuant to this subparagraph. A local agency shall not be liable for the civil penalty if the Department of Housing and Community Development does not notify the agency that the agency is in violation of this article within 30 days of receiving the written notification and findings. Once the department determines that the declarations and findings comply with subclauses (I) to (IV), inclusive, of clause (i), the local agency may proceed with disposal of land pursuant to this subparagraph. This clause is declaratory of, and not a change in, existing law.
(v) If the local agency disposes of land in violation of this subparagraph, the local agency shall be liable for a civil penalty calculated as follows:
(I) For a first violation, 30 percent of the greater of the final sale price or the fair market value of the land at the time of disposition.
(II) For a second or subsequent violation, 50 percent of the greater of the final sale price or the fair market value of the land at the time of disposition.
(III) For purposes of this subparagraph, fair market value shall be determined by an independent appraisal of the land.
(IV) An action to enforce this subparagraph may be brought by any of the following:
(ia) An entity identified in subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, of Section 54222. (ib) A person who would have been eligible to apply for residency in affordable housing had the agency not violated this section.
(ic) A housing organization, as that term is defined in Section 65589.5. (id) A beneficially interested person or entity.
(ie) The Department of Housing and Community Development. (V) A penalty assessed pursuant to this subparagraph shall, except as otherwise provided, be deposited into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the penalty moneys into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund or the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. Penalties shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the penalty moneys deposited into the local housing trust fund within five years of deposit for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units that are affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(VI) Five years after deposit of the penalty moneys into the local housing trust fund, if the funds have not been expended, the funds shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund or the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units located in the same jurisdiction as the surplus land and that are affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. Expenditure of any penalty moneys deposited into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund or the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to appropriation by the Legislature.
(vi) For purposes of this subparagraph, the following definitions apply:
(I) “Sectional planning area” means an area composed of identifiable planning units, within which common services and facilities, a strong internal unity, and an integrated pattern of land use, circulation, and townscape planning are readily achievable.
(II) “Sectional planning area document” means a document or plan that sets forth, at minimum, a site utilization plan of the sectional planning area and development standards for each land use area and designation.
(vii) This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2034. (Q) Land that is owned by a California public-use airport on which residential uses are prohibited pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance Program, Chapter 20 -- Compatible Land Use and Airspace Protection.
(R) Land that is transferred to a community land trust, and all of the following conditions are met:
4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 8/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) (i) The property is being or will be developed or rehabilitated as any of the following:
(I) An owner-occupied single-family dwelling.
(II) An owner-occupied unit in a multifamily dwelling.
(III) A member-occupied unit in a limited equity housing cooperative. (IV) A rental housing development.
(ii) Improvements on the property are or will be available for use and ownership or for rent by qualified persons, as defined in paragraph (6) of subdivision (c) of Section 214.18 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (iii) (I) A deed restriction or other instrument, requiring a contract or contracts serving as an enforceable restriction on the sale or resale value of owner-occupied units or on the affordability of rental units is recorded on or before the lien date following the acquisition of the property by the community land trust. (II) For the purpose of this clause, the following definitions apply:
(ia) “A contract or contracts serving as an enforceable restriction on the sale or resale value of owneroccupied units” means a contract described in paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(ib) “A contract or contracts serving as an enforceable restriction on the affordability of rental units” means an enforceable and verifiable agreement with a public agency, a recorded deed restriction, or other legal document described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(iv) A copy of the deed restriction or other instrument shall be provided to the assessor. (S) (i) For local agencies whose primary mission or purpose is to supply the public with a transportation system, surplus land that is developed for commercial or industrial uses or activities, including nongovernmental retail, entertainment, or office development or for the sole purpose of investment or generation of revenue, if the agency meets all of the following conditions:
(I) The agency has an adopted land use plan or policy that designates at least 50 percent of the gross acreage covered by the adopted land use plan or policy for residential purposes. The adopted land use plan or policy shall also require the development of at least 300 residential units, or at least 10 residential units per gross acre, averaged across all land covered by the land use plan or policy, whichever is greater. (II) The agency has an adopted land use plan or policy that requires at least 25 percent of all residential units to be developed on the parcels covered by the adopted land use plan or policy made available to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable sales price or rented at an affordable rent, as defined in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for ownership housing, unless a local ordinance or the terms of a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer period of affordability. These terms shall be included in the land use plan or policy and dictate that they will be contained in a covenant or restriction recorded against the surplus land at the time of disposition that shall run with the land and be enforceable against any owner or lessee who violates the covenant or restriction and each successor in interest who continues the violation.
(III) Land disposed of for residential purposes shall issue a competitive request for proposals subject to the local agency’s open, competitive solicitation process or put out to open, competitive bid by the local agency, provided that all entities identified in subdivision (a) of Section 54222 are invited to participate. (IV) Prior to entering into an agreement to dispose of a parcel for nonresidential development on land designated for the purposes authorized pursuant to this subparagraph in an agency’s adopted land use plan or policy, the agency, since January 1, 2020, must have entered into an agreement to dispose of a minimum of 25 percent of the land designated for affordable housing pursuant to subclause (II). (ii) The agency may exempt at one time all parcels covered by the adopted land use plan or policy pursuant to this subparagraph.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a written notice of the availability of surplus land for open-space purposes shall be sent to the entities described in subdivision (b) of Section 54222 before disposing of the surplus land, provided the land does not meet the criteria in subparagraph (H) of paragraph (1), if the land is any of the following:
(A) Within a coastal zone.
4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 9/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) (B) Adjacent to a historical unit of the State Parks System. (C) Listed on, or determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation to be eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places.
(D) Within the Lake Tahoe region as defined in Section 66905.5. (g) “Persons and families of low or moderate income” has the same meaning as provided in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.

SEC. 2. Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155) is added to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to read:

CHAPTER 4.1.5. Transit-Oriented Development
65912.155. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) California faces a housing shortage both acute and chronic, particularly in areas with access to robust public transit infrastructure.
(b) Building more homes near transit access reduces housing and transportation costs for California families, and promotes environmental sustainability, economic growth, and reduced traffic congestion. (c) Public transit systems require sustainable funding to provide reliable service, especially in areas experiencing increased density and ridership. The state does not invest in public transit service to the same degree as it does in roads, and the state funds a smaller proportion of the state’s major transit agencies’ operations costs than other states with comparable systems. Transit systems in other countries derive significant revenue from transit oriented development at and near their stations.
65912.156. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) “Adjacent” means sharing a property line with a transit station or stop, including any parcels that serve a parking or circulation purpose related to the station or stop.
(b) “Department” means the Department of Housing and Community Development. (c) “Floor area ratio” means the ratio of net habitable square footage dedicated to residential use to the area of the lot. (d) “High-frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail service operating a total of at least six trains per hour during weekday peak periods at any point in the past three years, or with a service plan to implement that frequency in the next three years.
(e) “High-resource area” means a high-resource neighborhood opportunity area, as used in the opportunity area maps published annually by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the department. (f) “Moderate-frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail service with a total of at least 24 daily trains per weekday and service frequency below a total of 6 trains per hour during weekday peak periods at any point in the past three years, or with a service plan to implement that frequency in the next three years. (g) “Net habitable square footage” means the finished and heated floor area fully enclosed by the inside surface of walls, windows, doors, and partitions, and having a headroom of at least six and one-half feet, including working, living, eating, cooking, sleeping, stair, hall, service, and storage areas, but excluding garages, carports, parking spaces, cellars, halfstories, and unfinished attics and basements. (h) “Rail transit” has the same meaning as defined in Section 99602 of the Public Utilities Code. (i) “Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop served by rail transit, as defined in Section 99602 of the Public Utilities Code, including, but not limited to, high-frequency commuter rail and light rail transit that uses fixed guideway facilities immediately adjacent to the transit-oriented development stop, excluding those rail transit services defined as part of Tier 2 or 3. (j) “Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop served by light rail transit run by a public transit operator that uses fixed guideway facilities that are not grade separated immediately adjacent to the transit-oriented development stop, or fixed guideway or nonfixed guideway bus service with frequencies of 15 minutes or better that uses transit priority lanes for some or all of the route. (k) “Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop served by moderate-frequency commuter rail service or ferry service.
(l) “Transit-oriented development stop” means a major transit stop, as defined by Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, excluding any stop served by rail transit with a frequency of fewer than 10 total trains per weekday. 4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 10/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) 65912.157. (a) A residential development within one-half or one-quarter mile of a transit-oriented development stop shall be an allowed use on any site zoned for residential, mixed, commercial, or light industrial development, if the development complies with the applicable of all of the following requirements:
(1) For a residential development within one-quarter mile of a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
(A) A development may be built up to 75 feet high, or up to the local height limit, whichever is greater. (B) A local government shall not impose any maximum density of less than 120 dwelling units per acre. The development proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with applicable density bonus law. (C) A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would prevent achieving a floor area ratio of up to 3.5. (D) A development that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, affordability requirements, shall be eligible for three additional concessions pursuant to Section 65915. (2) For a residential development within one-half mile of a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
(A) A development may be built up to 65 feet high, or up to the local height limit, whichever is greater. (B) A local government shall not impose any maximum density standard of less of less than 100 dwelling units per acre. The development proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with applicable density bonus law.
(C) A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would prevent achieving a floor area ratio of up to 3.
(D) A development that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, affordability requirements, shall be eligible for two additional concessions pursuant to Section 65915. (3) For a residential development within one-quarter mile of a Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
(A) A development may be built up to 65 feet high, or up to the local height limit, whichever is greater. (B) A local government shall not impose any maximum density standard of less than 100 dwelling units per acre.

The development proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with applicable density bonus law. (C) A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would prevent achieving a floor area ratio of up to 3.
(D) A development that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, affordability requirements, shall be eligible for two additional concessions pursuant to Section 65915. (4) For a residential development within one-half mile of a Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
(A) A development may be built up to 55 feet high, or up to the local height limit, whichever is greater. (B) A local government shall not impose any maximum density standard of less than 80 dwelling units per acre. The development proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with applicable density bonus law. (C) A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would prevent achieving a floor area ratio of up to 2.5. (D) A development that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, affordability requirements, shall be eligible for one additional concession pursuant to Section 65915. (5) For a residential development within one-quarter mile of a Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
(A) A development may be built up to 55 feet high, or up to the local height limit, whichever is greater. (B) A local government shall not impose any maximum density standard of less than 80 dwelling units per acre. The development proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with applicable density bonus law. 4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 11/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) (C) A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would prevent achieving a floor area ratio of up to 2.5. (D) A development that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, affordability requirements, shall be eligible for one additional concession pursuant to Section 65915. (6) For a residential development within one-half mile of a Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
(A) A development may be built up to 45 feet high, or up to the local height limit, whichever is greater. (B) A local government shall not impose any maximum density standard of less than 60 dwelling units per acre. The development proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with applicable density bonus law. (C) A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would prevent achieving a floor area ratio of up to 2.
(b) Notwithstanding any other law, a parcel that meets any of the eligibility criteria under subdivision (a) and is immediately adjacent to a Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop shall be eligible for an adjacency intensifier to increase the height limit by an additional 20 feet, the maximum density standard by an additional 40 dwelling units per acre, and the floor area ratio by 1. (c) A development proposed pursuant to this section shall comply with the antidisplacement requirements of Section 66300.6. This subdivision shall apply to any city or county. (d) A local government that denies a project meeting of the requirements of this section that is located in a high-resource area shall be presumed to be in violation of the Housing Accountability Act (Section 65589.5) and liable for penalties pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) of Section 65589.5, unless the local government demonstrates substantial evidence that it has a health, life, or safety reason for denying the project. 65912.158. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a transit agency may adopt objective standards for both residential and commercial developments proposed to be constructed on land owned by the transit agency or on which the transit agency has a permanent operating easement, if the objective standards allow for the same or greater development intensity as that allowed by local standards or applicable state law. 65912.159. A development project proposed pursuant to Section 65912.157 shall be eligible for streamlined ministerial approval pursuant to Section 65913.4 in accordance with both of the following:
(a) The proposed project shall be exempt from subparagraph (A) of paragraph (4) of, paragraph (5) of, and clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) of, subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (b) The project shall comply with all other requirements of Section 65913.4, including, but not limited to, the prohibition against a site that is within a very high fire hazard severity zone, pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.
65912.160. (a) The department shall oversee compliance with this chapter, including, but not limited to, promulgating standards on how to account for capacity pursuant to this chapter in a city or county’s inventory of land suitable for residential development, pursuant to Section 65583.2.
(b) (1) A local government may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of this chapter, which may include revisions to applicable zoning requirements on individual sites within a transit-oriented development zone, provided that those revisions maintain the average density allowed for the applicable tier, or up to a 100-percent increase, subject to review by the department pursuant to paragraph (3).
(2) An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(3) (A) A local government shall submit a copy of any ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to the department within 60 days of adoption.
(B) Upon receipt of an ordinance pursuant to this paragraph, the department shall review that ordinance and determine whether it complies with this section. If the department determines that the ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall notify the local government in writing and provide the local government a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days, to respond before taking further action as authorized by this section. (C) The local government shall consider any findings made by the department pursuant to subparagraph (B) and shall do one of the following:
4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 12/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) (i) Amend the ordinance to comply with this section.
(ii) Adopt the ordinance without changes. The local government shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local government believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite the findings of the department.
(D) If the local government does not amend its ordinance in response to the department’s findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with this chapter and addressing the department’s findings, the department shall notify the local government and may notify the Attorney General that the local government is in violation of this section.
65912.161. The Legislature finds and declares that the state faces a housing crisis of availability and affordability, in large part due to a severe shortage of housing, and solving the housing crisis therefore requires a multifaceted, statewide approach, including, but not limited to, encouraging an increase in the overall supply of housing, encouraging the development of housing that is affordable to households at all income levels, removing barriers to housing production, expanding homeownership opportunities, and expanding the availability of rental housing, and is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution.

Therefore, this chapter applies to all cities, including charter cities.

SEC. 3. Section 21080.26.5 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:
21080.26.5. (a) For the purposes of this section, “public project” means a project constructed by either a public agency or private entity, that, upon the completion of the construction, will be operated by a public agency. (b) This division shall not apply to a public or private residential, commercial, or mixed-used project that, at the time the project application is filed, is located entirely or principally on land owned by a public transit agency, or fully or partially encumbered by an existing operating easement in favor of a public transit agency, and that includes at least one of the following:
(1) A project component identified in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, or paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 21080.25.
(2) A public project for passenger rail service facilities, other than light rail service eligible under paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 21080.25, including the construction, reconfiguration, or rehabilitation of stations, terminals, rails, platforms, or existing operations facilities, which will be exclusively used by zero-emission or electric trains. The project shall be located on land owned by a public transit agency, or land fully or partially encumbered by an existing operating easement in favor of a public transit agency, at the time the project application is filed. (3) An agreement between the project applicant and public transit agency that owns the land or has the permanent operating easement to finance transit capital infrastructure, transit maintenance, or transit operations, including through a proposed public financing district, community financing district, or tax increment generated by the project. (c) If a project described in subdivision (b) requires the construction of new passenger rail storage and maintenance facilities at a publicly or privately owned offsite location distinct from the principal project site, then that project shall be considered a wholly separate project from the project described in subdivision (b) and shall not be exempt from this division. Any required environmental review shall not affect or render invalid the exemption provided in subdivision (b), regardless of whether the project described in subdivision (b) cannot proceed unless the offsite facilities are constructed.

SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local government or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

SECTION 1.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that makes housing more affordable for California families, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and enhances public transit systems. (b)Specifically, it is the intent of the Legislature that the legislation described in subdivision (a) do all of the following:
(1)Require the upzoning of land near rail stations and rapid bus lines to encourage transit-oriented development. (2)Ensure that the degree of upzoning is proportional to the capacity of the adjacent transit network and the distance to transit stations, thereby maximizing the use of public transit infrastructure. (3)Integrate upzoning provisions into local jurisdictions’ housing elements to align with statewide housing goals and promote compliance with the regional housing need allocation process. (4)Support transit agencies in increasing and diversifying their revenue sources beyond existing public subsidies and fare revenue either in this bill or in subsequent legislation, ensuring sustainable funding for operational and capital 4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 13/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) improvements necessary to meet increased demand resulting from upzoning initiatives.

SEC. 2.(a)The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(1)California faces a housing shortage both acute and chronic, particularly in areas with access to robust public transit infrastructure.
(2)Building more homes near transit access reduces housing and transportation costs for California families, and promotes environmental sustainability, economic growth, and reduced traffic congestion. (3)Public transit systems require sustainable funding to provide reliable service, especially in areas experiencing increased density and ridership. The state does not invest in public transit service to the same degree as it does in roads, and the state funds a smaller proportion of the state’s major transit agencies’ operations costs than other states with comparable systems.
(b)Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to address these challenges by enacting legislation to do the following:
(1)Establishing a framework for transit-based upzoning that is sensitive to the capacity of existing and planned transit infrastructure.
(2)Supporting local jurisdictions in integrating these upzoning requirements into their housing elements as part of their general plans.
(3)Allowing local jurisdictions to be exempt from the upzoning provisions if they adopt higher intensity or more permissive zoning standards than those set by state law. (4)Ensuring that all eligible parcels may also benefit from the streamlining provisions under Section 65913.4 of the Government Code, provided they meet the labor, environmental, and other relevant standards outlined in the statute. (5)Granting transit agencies the authority to set residential and commercial zoning standards on properties they own or have a permanent operating easement on, provided that the residential and commercial zoning standards are higher intensity and more permissive than the zoning standards set by the local government.

SEC. 3.In enacting the legislation described in Section 1, it is further the intent of the Legislature to do the following:
(a)Consult with local governments, regional planning agencies, transit operators, housing advocates, environmental groups, and other stakeholders to develop effective and equitable upzoning criteria. (b)Require local jurisdictions to adopt and implement these transit-based upzoning policies in a timely and effective manner.
(c)Monitor and evaluate the outcomes of transit-based upzoning policies to ensure alignment with the state’s housing, environmental, and transportation goals.
4/3/25, 3:04 PM Bill Text - SB-79 Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 14/14

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: SB 79 (7031 : Support SB 79) 1 Clerk Mailbox
From: Dan Philibin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:00 AM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Agenda Item 16E & 16F: Support for SB 79 and SB 677

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
As a Santa Monica resident, I urge you to support agenda items 16E and 16F for SB 79 and SB 677.

Supporting these pro-housing bills is vital not only to address our city's housing crisis, but also to ensure a stable financial future by expanding our tax base and bringing in much-needed revenue. Taking a prohousing position on these bills is crucial for our city’s future and aligns with the council's stated prohousing goals.

SB 677 is a vital piece of legislation that strengthens existing law to facilitate the development of duplexes, fourplexes, and multi-family housing. As a resident frustrated by our high housing prices, I view SB 677 as a necessary step toward creating more housing options, alleviating affordability issues, and boosting our tax base by bringing new residents into our city. By streamlining approvals and addressing loopholes in earlier laws such as SB 9 and SB 423, it empowers small developers to build more efficiently and creates opportunities for homeownership.

Similarly, SB 79 on transit-oriented development is essential for smart, sustainable growth. It is unacceptable that areas immediately adjacent to valuable transit, like Westwood on the Expo Line, remain restricted to single-family zoning. Supporting SB 79 would promote denser development near transit, reduce car dependency, and better serve our community’s needs.

If the council genuinely wants to be pro-housing, supporting these measures is imperative. I urge you to vote in favor of these bills.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Dan Philibin
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 1 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 12:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Items 16-E & 16-F: Oppose SB 79 and SB 677!

EXTERNAL
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 2:41 AM
Subject: Agenda Items 16-E & 16-F: Oppose SB 79 and SB 677! To: <[email protected]>, Dan Hall <[email protected]>, To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Why are remote legislators trying to dictate detailed zoning rules in Santa Monica and other cities all over the state?
Who is mostly funding their election campaigns? Real estate developers and building unions, that's who, and that is who would mainly benefit from the forced densification of targeted areas of Santa Monica.

Santa Monica, like many California cities, needs affordable housing.

That's really the only new housing we need, because we have 4500+ vacant units citywide! But these one-size-fitsall state mandates haven't forced any new units to be affordable, because the sponsors only care that new units get built. Just more market rate units will not help our work here/live here imbalance, nor help us meet our recently-ridiculous RHNA mandates.

Santa Monica has historically added more than enough new units to meet its RHNA quotas, when they were reasonable, and we don't need people who don't live or work here, don't know us, our history or our small-town culture to dictate the details of how we accommodate growth.

William and Mary Lou Schoene
1519 Oak Street Santa Monica 90405
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 1 Clerk Mailbox
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; PNA SM Cc: Brian O'Neil; Tony Huizar; Marisela Herrera; Berenice Onofre; Gina DeBaca Subject: Council agenda item 16E & 16F

EXTERNAL
To: The City of Santa Monica Planning Commission
From: Pico Neighborhood Association Board of Directors
Date: April 8, 2025
Re: Council Agenda Items 16E and 16F
The Pico Neighborhood Association Board of Directors oppose Councilmember Zwick’s request that the City Council approve the City taking a “Support” position on both SB79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener). We are concerned about the potential impact of displacement of long term renters that will be caused by SB79 and SB677 along with destroying the that both state legislation will have on long term renters along with destroying the character and scale of our neighborhoods. The PNA Board of Directors urge you to reject Councilmember Zwick’s requests in both Agenda items 16E and 16F in which he seeks unsolicited “Support” positions on two pieces of pending State legislation - SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener).

SB79- With the construction of the light rail in Santa Monica’s Pico Neighborhood and the push for Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) our residents will be threatened by new commercial development, traffic, increase in air pollution and by a relentless housing market that continues to generate significant rent increases and high priced condominiums that very few residents can afford. SB 67 overrides our local control of zoning to legalize tall, multi-family buildings anywhere within one-half mile of a high-quality public transit stop. This would encompass almost all of Santa Monica, including R1, R2, R3. If this bill passes buildings of up to 75 feet tall would be allowed throughout the city. In fact, it will Would legalize multi-family buildings within one-half mile of a high-quality public transit stop. Depending on the level of service, these buildings could be up to 75 feet tall, or even higher in certain cases, with a density of up to 120 units per acre. None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking.

SB677- This legislation will invite developer speculation by lifting the owner occupancy requirement for lot splits. If passed, SB 677 would remove the prohibition against multiple splits of the same urban lot, making it legal to subdivide a 5000 square foot parcel into 2 lots, and then subdivide those to create 4 separate lots, each of which can have 4 units, resulting in 16 units on a 5000 square foot lot. This will result in creating upward market pressures for rents throughout our City making the affordability crises even worse for working people in Santa Monica it also further erodes local control of multifamily housing projects if the State decides a city has not met its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals or adopted a compliant housing element.

We urge the Council take a proactive “Oppose” position on both proposed bills and vote NO on 16E and 16F. Santa Monicans did not elect a City Council to surrender to the State its authority to make planning and land use decisions for our city. Our Council must not participate in this destructive legislation that would stimulate speculation and drive up the cost of home ownership. We ask you to Oppose both SB79 and SB 677.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Armine Chaparyan; Douglas Sloan
Subject: Agenda Items 16.E. and 16.F. (April 8, 2025)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please reject Zwick’s request to take a “support” position on SB 79 and SB 677.

An abundance of newly constructed housing is and will not provide the low income and worker housing needed.

Instead the over abundance of high priced units is making a highly desirable location such as Santa Monica, a more expensive place to live.

Stand up to the greedy developers and investors who want to erode our control of how we collectedly wish to develop!
We want responsible and well thought out urban development and NOT reckless and dangerous planning that harms the livability and unique characteristics of the land we are here to steward.

Please say NO to SB 79 and SB 677!
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
resident since the early 1980’s
(and fan of Santa Monica since well before)
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 1 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E - Please Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro tem Torosis, Council members, I'm deeply concerned about the proposed resolution to preemptively support SB 79. Please oppose 16-E on today's agenda.

SB 79 legalizes 55-65 foot tall, multi-unit buildings anywhere within 1/2 a mile of nearly any bus stop. To be clear, that would encompass almost all of Santa Monica - virtually no city block would be spared from this designation. R1, R2, R3, everything. On even the quietest streets of our beautiful city, these buildings could legally become 5-6 stories. There are - of course - no affordability requirements for any of this.

This bill would fundamentally and forever change Santa Monica. It’s no surprise that it originates with Scott Weiner, one of the most extreme members of the State Legislature who has never lived in Santa Monica and knows nothing about our lives here.

This legislation would continue the erosion of our local control over our own zoning. Deferring to the state further disenfranchises Santa Monicans and renders our city council obsolete.

We all want to be good liberals and make housing more affordable. But with no affordability requirements, this bill won’t help that effort.

This bill will, in fact, make Santa Monica more expensive for ordinary people. We know that without affordability requirements, only luxury market rate apartments will be built. The more units that are allowed on a parcel, the more valuable (aka expensive) that becomes. But only developers have the funding to construct apartment towers, so they will easily outbid individual homebuyers, tear down the homes, and build luxury units - because that is what makes the most money.

Just last week, an important study came out from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco that confirms this economic view. They found that the single most important factor that affects housing prices, and FAR outweighs the influence that a constrained supply has on prices is the INCOME AND WEALTH of the people who are moving into the city.

Here is an article about the study. Please read it! https://catalystsca.org/new-study-by-fed-economistsdirectly-contradicts-yimby-narrative-on-housing-prices/ Santa Monica, according to the State of California Department of Finance, has an overall vacancy rate in the city of 9.5%. And a multifamily home vacancy rate of a whopping 11.1%! Yet we have some of the highest prices in the country. Simply adding supply to Santa Monica will not bring the cost of housing down.

It’s why in Vancouver, for example, tens of thousands of new housing units have been added, with few constraints—and yet it remains one of the most expensive cities in North America.

The YIMBY narrative that is at the heart of SB79 is specious. Those of us who actually have lived in this city and tried to buy homes already know this based on our own real life experiences.

SB79 is an extreme, counterproductive proposal that will fundamentally and forever change our city while providing zero meaningful affordable housing.

Lastly, I want to emphasize how unrelatable this legislation is to average people. Not many people may be openly opposing this now, because they don’t know about it, but we can be sure that they’re going to be livid if it’s passed and they see 7 story buildings go up left and right of them, and their single family neighborhoods Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 2 crushed. California has been red before and it's easy to see how legislation like this would tilt voters in that direction again.

The rest of the country also looks to California as a picture of what the Democratic party represents. This bill will appear radical to ordinary people in the rest of America. Passing out of touch legislation like this in California will likely shore up support for our political opposition on the national stage.

Thank you,
Heather Thomason
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 3 David Yakobson
From: Robert Jordan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment for Agenda Item 16-E

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a proud member of the Sunset Park Neighborhood and I support agenda item 16-E. This will help improve use of our public transport system and will help bring more affordable housing to the city.

Thanks,
Robert Jordan
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 4 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: In Support: Item 16.E

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a resident, renter, and voter, I support the City of Santa Monica backing Senate Bill 79. We need more housing and mixes of uses near transit to ameliorate our dual affordability and climate crises.

Thank you,
Jacob Wasserman
11th and Washington
90403
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE:4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE!
The FOSP Board opposes Councilmember Zwick’s request that the City Council approve the City taking a “Support” position on both SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener).

These are extremely radical bills that would fundamentally and forever change all of Santa Monica. We encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these bills instead.

SB 79 overrides our local control of zoning to legalize tall, multi-family buildings anywhere within one-half mile of a high-quality public transit stop. To be clear, that would encompass almost all of Santa Monica - virtually no block in the city would be spared from this designation. That means, R1, R2, R3, everything. On even the quietest streets of our beautiful city, these buildings could be up to 75 feet tall, or even higher in certain cases, with a density of up to 120 units per acre.

None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. There are no affordability requirements for any of this. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.

SB 677 would continue the erosion of our local control over our own zoning by, among other things, lifting the owner occupancy requirement for lot splits statewide. It would also remove the prohibition against multiple splits of the same urban lot, which means it would become legal to subdivide a 5000 square foot parcel into 2 lots, and then subdivide those to create 4 separate lots, each of which can have 4 units, resulting in 16 units on a 5000 square foot lot.

This is a giveaway to developers, making it harder for normal people to buy land. SB 677 also further erodes local control of multifamily housing projects in cities that have not met their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals or adopted a compliant housing element, which the state can subjectively decide.

Again, the FOSP Board opposes both 16-E and 16-F. We believe that City Councils should have the authority to make planning and land use decisions for their cities and their residents, rather than the state legislature. To that end, we encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these two bills.

From: Oak OConnor
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please do not alter Zoning
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:23:42 AM

EXTERNAL
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Councilmailbox ; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Bcc: Zina Josephs Subject: City Council 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F
The FOSP Board opposes Councilmember Zwick’s request that the City Council approve the City taking a “Support” position on both SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener).

SB 79would legalize multi-family buildings within one-half mile of a high-quality public transit stop.

Depending on the level of service, these buildings could be up to 75 feet tall, or even higher in certain cases, with a density of up to 120 units per acre. None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking.

SB 677-- Senate Bill 677 makes various changes to SB 9 and SB 423. SB 9 requires ministerial approvals for duplexes and lot splits in single-family zoned districts statewide.

SB 423 extends the sunset provision of SB 35 to continue and enhance the streamlined ministerial approval process for multifamily housing projects in cities that have not met their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals or adopted a compliant housing element.

Sincerely,
-padpeter a donald
2618 32nd St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 871-4862
[email protected]
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 2 David Yakobson
From: A De La Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: Resident and opposition 16-E and 16-F – oppose. And getting rid Fairview

EXTERNAL
I oppose the Santa Monica City Council endorsing SB 79 and SB 667 because:
- SB 79 overrides our local control of zoning to legalize tall, multi-family buildings anywhere within onehalf mile of a high-quality public transit stop. To be clear, that would encompass almost all of Santa Monica - virtually no block in the city would be spared from this designation. That means, R1, R2, R3, everything. On even the quietest streets of our beautiful city, these buildings could be up to 75 feet tall, or even higher in certain cases, with a density of up to 120 units per acre. - None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. - There are no affordability requirements for any of this in SB 79. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.
- SB 677 would continue the erosion of our local control over our own zoning by, among other things, lifting the owner occupancy requirement for lot splits statewide. - It would also remove the prohibition against multiple splits of the same urban lot. - SB 677 also further erodes local control of multifamily housing projects in cities that have not met their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals or adopted a compliant housing element, which the state can subjectively decide.
- These are giveaways to developers, making it harder for normal people to buy land. - These bills aren't even final so we don't even know what they will say. - No analysis has been conducted by either the county or city staff as to what the impact of these laws would actually be.
- There is a public hearing on related topics on April 22, so voting on this nullifies that public hearing we are legally entitled to.
- The city is already in litigation over one of the issues so taking an action puts the city at further risk for litigation.
- Santa Monicans did not elect a City Council to surrender to the State its authority to make planning and land use decisions for our city.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 3 I oppose getting rid of Fairview Library!! This could be use for the community as sole childrens center for learning! More public learning opportunities for children of Santa Monica!!!! Analis De La Rosa R.N, BSN, PHN
Ph: (530) 391-6714
"Keep your face always toward the sunshineand the shadows will fall behind you"- Walt Whitman Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 4 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: support 16E and 16F 4/8/2025

EXTERNAL
I'm writing to support the city council voting yes on items 16E and 16F on tonight's agenda.

I'm sure there will be plenty of other commenters covering all of the other important reasons it's urgent that we pass SBs 79 and 677. I'd like to focus on the national implications of Santa Monica's and California's continued failures to build housing.

Current population forecasts have California losing 3 House seats in the 2030 reapportionment, with Texas and Florida alone gaining a combined 8 seats. While "virtue signaling" has largely been co-opted as an empty rightwing talking point, it would be an actual example of virtue signaling for Santa Monica and California to declare ourselves a safe haven for women, LGBTQ+, and other groups while refusing to allow the construction of housing for them to live in. This apportionment forecast also suggests a high risk of locking in permanent Republican control of the House and presidency by sending House seats (and thus electoral college votes) to states with Republican-controlled state governments which have proven track records of engaging in extreme gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Given the consistently lopsided votes in favor of Democratic candidates for House, Senate, and president in Santa Monica, our Santa Monica values are clearly best advanced by supporting these two pieces of urgently-needed stated housing legislation.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 5 https://thearp.org/blog/apportionment/2030-apportionment-forecast-2024 Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 6 David Yakobson
From: Dan Cobbett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear members of the council. I urge you to oppose supporting SB79 and SB677. While I support adding additional high and medium density housing in Santa Monica, I think the state-dictated mandates in these bills are not a good fit for us. They may be good for some cities in California, but due to the specific nature of Santa Monica, I don't believe it's a good fit.

For one thing, eliminating local control over developments 1/2 mile from transit would apply to a huge portion of our city, which would open almost the whole city up to having 75 foot tall residential buildings, which would not be required to have parking for their residents. Not only would this completely change the character of our city, but it would make the already often painful parking and traffic situation worse.

Assuming that people who live a 1/2 mile from the Expo line are going to just not want a vehicle and be okay walking and taking public transpo everywhere is magical thinking.

Also, why would the city council and planning department want to give away control of how to shape our city? Don't the council and planning dept. have the capacity to guide SENSIBLE development in our city, which provides significant new housing, near transit, with a sensible amount of parking, which takes into account walking routes, biking routes, and local business development? I know we're fighting NIMBY attitudes when trying to develop more housing, but giving the control over to extreme state-mandated guidelines doesn't seem like the right answer. Honestly, it seems like a sweetheart deal for developers, allowing them to build whatever they want without local control. Bad idea. Big business and the wealthy are already practically running our country, the last thing we want to do is give away control of our city to them!
Please oppose support for SB79 and SB677.

Thanks for reading!
Dan Cobbett
Sunset Park, Santa Monica, CA
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 7 David Yakobson
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; PNA SM Cc: Brian O'Neil; Tony Huizar; Marisela Herrera; Berenice Onofre; Gina DeBaca Subject: Council agenda item 16E & 16F

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 8 David Yakobson
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Support Item 16 E & F

EXTERNAL
Hello Councilmembers,
The city of Santa Monica should take a position in support of SB79 and SB677. SB79 is crucial to increase housing product and address the regional housing crisis. Santa Monica cannot singlehandedly address California's demand for housing, and SB79 will more equitably lead to housing in the right locations.

Too often, housing production is directed to the locations which are least controversial and do not disrupt single family homeowners. Limitations on housing in high resource areas close to transit remain stubborn. Personally, each time I ride the E Line, I notice how little housing is available near the Westwood Rancho Park station. This is by design - LA city council refused to upzone this area in association with the creation of the E Line. SB79 would right this wrong, and allow renters and new residents into the area. Santa Monica is doing its part in rezoning to allow housing near transit - it's time to push the assembly to make Los Angeles do the same.

Thanks,
Sam Shapiro-Kline
90403
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 9 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Friendsofsunsetpark Info
Subject: City Council Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE (Preserve Local Control !!!)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council -
I am writing to oppose Items 16E and 16F. These are bad policy in general, but also destructive to Santa Monica specifically.

Here are some of the many reasons you should vote no.

First, there are substantive problems:
 SB 79 overrides our local control of zoning to legalize tall, multi-family buildings anywhere within one-half mile of a high-quality public transit stop. To be clear, that would encompass almost all of Santa Monica - virtually no block in the city would be spared from this designation.

That means, R1, R2, R3, everything. On even the quietest streets of our beautiful city, these buildings could be up to 75 feet tall, or even higher in certain cases, with a density of up to 120 units per acre.
 None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking.  There are no affordability requirements for any of this in SB 79. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.
 The definition of high-quality transit is a joke and doesn't align with reality. Living near one Big Blue Bus line to UCLA is NOT living "near high quality transit".  SB 677 would continue the erosion of our local control over our own zoning by, among other things, lifting the owner occupancy requirement for lot splits statewide.  It would also remove the prohibition against multiple splits of the same urban lot.  SB 677 also further erodes local control of multifamily housing projects in cities that have not met their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals or adopted a compliant housing element, which the state can subjectively decide.
 These are giveaways to developers, making it harder for normal people to buy land. The more density allowed on a parcel, the MORE EXPENSIVE/LESS AFFORDABLE it gets. That makes home prices go UP not down.
 The more you incentivize developers to scrape lots and build dense rental units, the fewer lots remain with homes for purchase. These bills REDUCE THE SUPPLY OF HOUSES FOR SALE.

Second, there are procedural problems:
 These bills aren't even final so we don't even know what they will say. These developerpushed housing bills are notorious for last-minute changes and you would be signing Santa Monica on sight unseen.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 10  No analysis has been conducted by either the county or city staff as to what the impact of these laws would actually be. How can you possibly support something with no analysis of the outcomes (which can't be known because the language isn't final)?  There is a public hearing in Santa Monica on related topics on April 22, so voting on this today effectively nullifies that public hearing. The residents of Santa Monica are legally entitled to a free, fair, and transparent public hearing on our zoning and LUCE designations. A vote on these 16 items will lock you into votes in that hearing before the public (your constituents!) have had a chance to speak.

Third, there are legal problems:
 The city is already in litigation over the owner occupancy issue, so taking an action tonight puts the city at further risk for litigation. This is why the Planning Commission opposed the items coming to you on April 22.
 If you approve these items and then are compelled to vote consistently on April 22, you will be voting to have Santa Monica violate state law, which still expressly and emphatically requires owner occupancy in R1.

Santa Monicans did not elect a City Council to surrender to the State its authority to make planning and land use decisions for our city. We are also getting tired of you ruling by surprise 16-Items instead of a deliberative process of analysis and public engagement.

Do better for Santa Monicans. Vote no on 16-E and 16-F.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 11 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: April 8, 2025 Agenda items 16-E and 16-F, oppose

EXTERNAL
Please do not agree with Council member Zwick's request that the City Council approve taking a support position on both SB 79 and SB 677.

My reasons to oppose this is that it continues to override our local control of zoning and does not address the key housing issue of affordable or under market housing in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Karen Melick
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 12 David Yakobson
From: Johncysmith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 4/08/25 Council meeting Items 16.E and 16.F

EXTERNAL
Dear City Clerk, Staff,
Please have the two included slides ready when I speak on the above items during Item 6 Public Comment.

Thank you for all you do.

Sincerely,
John C Smith
Rec and Parks Commissioner
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 13 Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 15 Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 17 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: City Council - 4/8/25 - Agenda Items 16-E and 16-F -- Wilmont Board Opposes Both Efforts to Take a "Support" position on SB 79 and SB 677

EXTERNAL
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
[email protected]
Begin forwarded message:

From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Date: April 7, 2025 at 10:01:24 PM PDT
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Dan Hall <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council - 4/8/25 - Agenda Items 16-E and 16-F -- Wilmont Board Opposes Both Efforts to Take a "Support" position on SB 79 and SB 677 Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro tem Torosis and City Council Members, These resolutions to support two pieces of unpassed, proposed state legislation are unprecedented and impact all residential areas. What these bills do:
 SB 79 overrides our local control of residential zoning to legalize 55-65 foot tall, multi-family buildings anywhere within a 1/2 mile of nearly any bus stop. That would encompass almost all of Santa Monica - virtually no block in the city would be spared from this designation. That includes R1, R2, and R3 (and all of OP residential zoning as well I assume). On any residential street, R1 - R3 (again, I assume OP residential zoning too) could legally be 5-6 stories - and even in some cases up to 75 feet with a density of up to 120 units per acre. o It is a mistake for the city to endorse this bill, which is unpassed and we have no understanding of what the actual wording and contents of the final bill will be
o Wilmont is made up of R2 and R3 neighborhoods. This bill will not provide any affordable housing, will accelerate the gentrification and the loss of long-term renters yielding less diversity and a greater impact on seniors and low income people. This bill will only generate market housing.and we need affordable housing and homeless housing with services.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 18 o The purchase of 1-3 story apartment buildings will result in displacement of current renters, land costs will go up and the only winners will be the developers.
o The idea that more market rate housing could reduce housing prices in Santa Monica is not economically viable.
 SB 677 continues the erosion of local control over our own zoning. This legislation would lift the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits statewide, continuing a give away to developers and making it harder for residents and future residents to buy land. It also would remove the prohibition against owners who have previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split - meaning it would become legal for a piece of land to be subdivided multiple times, essentially at once e.g., there could be 16 units on a 5,000 square foot lot.
o The R1 owner-occupancy requirement has already been agendized based on the three city council members asking for an ordinance eliminating to be presented in the April 22, 2025 city council meeting. This issue should have a full city council meeting agenda item discussion with a public hearing to be voted on by the city council. This should not be confused with an unpassed, newly proposed state law. There is no reason to vote on this unpassed, proposed state legislation before this key issue goes through our own city process. We asked you to oppose the 16 F. resolution.

We also wonder if voting on these 16-items prematurely could have implications regarding a lawsuit that is currently in process.

Wilmont Board of Directors
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 19 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting 4/8/25 -- Items 16-E , 16-F - Oppose endorsement by city council of SB 79 and SB 677

EXTERNAL
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
[email protected]
Begin forwarded message:

From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Date: April 7, 2025 at 11:35:42 PM PDT
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Dan Hall <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Meeting 4/8/25 -- Items 16-E , 16-F - Oppose endorsement by city council of SB 79 and SB 677
Mayor Negrete and City Council Members,
I oppose Council member Zwick’s support for the unpassed, not analyzed and not finalized SB 79 and SB 677. These state bills once again show that these people don't care about their lack of affordable housing requirements, their lack of environmental impact analyses or the ultimate result being gentrification of cities which means existing affordable housing is replaced with market rate housing. What is government for? To help achieve what markets can't including for-the-common-good services such as police, fire and libraries. Instead these bills keep rolling out of Sacramento as giveaways to developers which erode the diversity of our city, especially with respect to the elderly and low income residents and as well the ability to grow generational wealth of real people, not corporations or companies who through god knows how it happened mechanism, are allowed to buy our land and build on it only for money, not to rent or buy a home to live in or raise a family in or maybe just grow vegetables in a raised garden. The push for market rate housing through these bills is relentless and it will destroy our diversity, our families, our generational wealth and our ability to maintain the affordable housing we do have. I want my city government to worry about how its residents can make money, not how developers can make money. The market will take care of that, specifically in Santa Monica. So, I oppose council member Zwick's resolutions. When I talk about abundance, it's to provide support and resources to the poor, the old, the people who cannot defend themselves, the meek, the children and the Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 20 residential community, who don’t want you to sell our community assets, especially our libraries, and not by giving developers the right to strafe our city with unregulated market rate housing.

Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Wilmont Chair
Speaking only for myself
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 21 David Yakobson
From: Brent Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: City Council Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

EXTERNAL
Begin forwarded message:

From: Brent Cohen <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose Date: April 8, 2025 at 8:42:54 AM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
I’m urging you—please do not let the Santa Monica City Council endorse SB 79 or SB 677. I say this not out of politics, but out of a deep concern for our community, our neighborhoods, and the character of the city we all love.

SB 79 would essentially strip Santa Monica of its ability to decide how our neighborhoods are shaped. It would force the approval of tall, dense, multi-family buildings—up to 75 feet high or more—within half a mile of any major transit stop. That may sound like a narrow radius, but here in Santa Monica, that would cover nearly the entire city. No block would be off-limits—not even the quietest residential streets where families have lived for generations.

Worse, SB 79 doesn’t even require these buildings to include parking. Nor does it require a single unit to be affordable. Not one. This isn’t about creating housing that real people in Santa Monica can afford. It’s about giving developers a green light to build whatever they want, wherever they want, with no accountability to the people who actually live here.

SB 677 only makes things worse. It would remove the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits, inviting speculation and profiteering. It would allow repeated subdivisions of the same urban lot and weaken our ability to manage multi-family development—especially if the state arbitrarily decides we haven’t met certain housing goals. That kind of state overreach is alarming.

Let’s be clear: these bills are not finalized. We don’t even know their final language. And there’s been no real analysis by our city or county staff on how they would impact Santa Monica. That’s reckless.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 22 There’s also a public hearing scheduled for April 22 on related land use issues. If the City Council votes now, before hearing from residents, it undermines the public process we’re legally and morally entitled to. Not to mention, Santa Monica is already facing litigation over a similar issue. Acting hastily now could open us up to even more legal risks.

Most importantly, this is not why we elected our City Council. We didn’t choose leaders to hand over our city’s planning authority to Sacramento. We trusted them to protect what makes Santa Monica special. Please, honor that trust. Stand with your neighbors and oppose these bills.

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
photo Brent Cohen
310-613-0204 | [email protected]
GMT +8
Santa Monica, CA
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

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

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 23 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:33 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Cc: Bruce Leddy; Nancy Coleman; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: ITEM 16E. and 16F - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

TO: Mayor Negrete and City Council Members
RE: ITEM 16E. and 16F., April 8, 2025 - OPPOSE
The Board of NOMA opposes Items 16.E and 16.F which request that City Council approve the City taking a position in support of SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener). Each of these bills would gut local discretion over land use planning and development decisions, and force dense housing into all corners of our city – residential neighborhoods, mixed-use zones, commercial zones, and light industrial zones alike.

Senate Bill 79 would impose dramatically taller residential building height limits and greater residential development density, without regard to incompatible uses, consequences of encroaching on our diverse residential neighborhoods, and strains on our public resources and infrastructure. The excessive height and density allowances created by this bill are not even contingent on the inclusion of a single affordable unit. And, with the inclusion of a pittance of affordable units, developers could add even more height and greater density under applicable state density bonus law.

Senate Bill 677 is breathtaking in its scope, amending four separate areas of state law – The Planning and Zoning Law, The Subdivision Map Act, The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, and the California Coastal Act of 1976. It proposes changes to no Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1352 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 24 fewer than nineteen discrete policies in state law. This bill eliminates all of the provisions in SB 9 (Atkins) that were intended to quell investor speculation and were intentionally and explicitly written to afford the SB 9 allowances to homeowners. These essential provisions of SB 9 are: 1) the requirement for split lots to be of approximately equal areas, 2) that neither the owner of a parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with that owner may have subdivided an adjacent parcel, and 3) that an applicant for a lot split shall be required to sign an affidavit attesting to their intent to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the lot split (the "owner-occupancy" rule).

SB 677 opens the floodgates to developer exploitation of our singlefamily neighborhoods without even moving the needle on the creation of affordable units. It will also reduce inclusionary affordable unit requirements and even explicitly prohibits local agencies from requiring deed-restricted affordable units. Together, they are the exact opposite of what is needed to promote badly needed affordable housing here.

The Board of NOMA strongly opposes SB 79 and SB 677 and we urge you to vote NO on Item 16.E and Item 16.F.
cc:

The Honorable Senator Ben Allen
The Honorable Rick Chavez Zbur
NOMA'S Next Meeting: THUR. May 1st
at 7PM on ZOOM
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81526517066
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1353 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 1 David Yakobson
From: Richard Daum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

EXTERNAL
Our household stands with Friends of Sunset Park.

An additional thought - Where is the water coming from? Richard Daum
3035 Linda Lane
Santa Monica, CA 90405
[email protected]
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Richard Daum <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 04:38:56 AM PDT
Subject: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose
Our household stands with Friends of Sunset Park.

An additional thought - Where is the water coming from? Richard Daum
3035 Linda Lane
Santa Monica, CA 90405
[email protected]
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 2 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 12:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: April 8, 2025 Item 16-E and 16-F OPPOSE

Support of SB79 and SB 677 would be another nail in the coffin of our cherished Santa Monica R-1 neighborhoods.

Santa Monica is a kaleidoscope of unique neighborhood personaliƟes-Downtown, the Beach, Pico, Montana, Wilmont, Mid-City, Ocean Park, Sunset Park.

Who should be in charge of the colors of our kaleidoscope? The state or ourselves? Please do NOT support SB 79 and SB 677.

Cathy Larson
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 3 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth W <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 10:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Please Oppose Agenda Items 16-E and 16-F for us

EXTERNAL
Please see below email, thank you.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Elizabeth W <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 10:03 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please Oppose Agenda Items 16-E and 16-F for us Thank you so much for your direction!
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
Get Outlook for iOS
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:39 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Please Oppose Agenda Items 16-E and 16-F for us Hi Elizabeth,
Please also forward your email below to [email protected] so it's included in the public record.

Thank you!
Zina Josephs
FOSP Secretary
******************************************************* Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 4 In a message dated 4/7/2025 8:28:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

To Our Elected Council Members,
I ask that you please hear and represent my voice, and the voices of each of my family members when you consider Items 16-E and 16-F tomorrow: we virulently oppose these items. They are truly an affront to our Santa Monica community and in conflict with everything we love about our city, our homes, schools, and skyline. Abdicating our power as a city to state decision making about local zoning is not why we voted for each of you.

Please don't sacrifice Santa Monica and ignore your constituents' voices. Please oppose agenda items 16 E+F.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Wallen and Family
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 5 David Yakobson
From: Kim Alexandriuk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

EXTERNAL
Please read my email below.

Thank you,
Kim

KIM ALEXANDRIUK

KIM ALEXANDRIUK INTERIOR DESIGN
2264 22nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310.399.7000 phone
www.alexandriuk.com
Begin forwarded message:

From: Kim Alexandriuk <[email protected]>
Date: April 7, 2025 at 8:40:22 PM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose
Dear Mayor Negrete and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to you as a concerned resident who has lived in Santa Monica for over 25 years, regarding the proposed bills SB 79 and SB 677.

I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and to take a clear stand against them.

Both of these bills represent a dangerous shift away from our community’s ability to manage local planning and zoning. They would permanently alter the character of Santa Monica, forcing unchecked development onto our neighborhoods. Without major upgrades to infrastructure, schools, and traffic systems, the city will be overwhelmed — with severe consequences for both current and future residents.

I urge you to stand with the residents of Santa Monica and oppose both SB 79 and SB 677.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 6 Kim Alexandriuk
22nd Street resident

KIM ALEXANDRIUK

KIM ALEXANDRIUK INTERIOR DESIGN
2264 22nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310.399.7000 phone
www.alexandriuk.com
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 7 David Yakobson
From: Gizelle Strohkendl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 9:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

EXTERNAL
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Gizelle Strohkendl <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 at 08:51:48 PM PDT
Subject: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose
Please think of the tax paying residents and voters who choose to live and invest here in this beautiful city by the ocean. The over-development of Santa Monica is not what the locals want. I have lived here for 60 years and I hardly recognize this town. Who are you working for? I oppose 16-E and 16F.

Sincerely Gizelle Strohkendl
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 8 David Yakobson
From: Mary Duprey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mary Duprey <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 8:29 PM
Subject: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE!
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear City Council Member:

I oppose SB 79 and SB677 items 16-E and 16F. These are extremely radical bills that would fundamentally and forever change all of Santa Monica. I encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these bills instead.

None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. There are no affordability requirements for any of this. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.

Again, I oppose both 16-E and 16-F. I believe that City Councils should have the authority to make planning and land use decisions for their cities and their residents, rather than the state legislature. To that end, I encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these two bills.

Sincerely,
Mary Duprey
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 10 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:39 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: SM Forward Support Letter for 16 E & F -- SB 79 & 677

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Santa Monica Forward strongly supports 16 E & 16F. Both SB 79 and SB 677 are critical bills to help address our state's ongoing housing shortage and the directly related homelessness crisis.

These bills are not just important for Santa Monica, they're important to ensure that statewide more of the housing we desperately need is actually built.

We urge the City Council to support these important pieces of legislation and join us in advocating for a more affordable, sustainable, and inclusive future. Your leadership is essential to ensuring Santa Monica continues to be a model for progressive housing policy and environmental responsibility.

Thank you for your continued commitment to equitable and forward-thinking policymaking.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 11 Sincerely,
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 12 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose.

EXTERNAL
뽁뽂뽃뽀뽄뽅뽆뽇
Katharine Dreyfuss reacted via Gmail
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 7:25 PM councilmtgitems <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for your email. Please be advised that this email will: 1) become part of the public record, 2) be filed with the City’s official records, and 3) be posted online at smgov.net/council/agendas. Comments will not be redacted and appear online as they are submitted.

If you plan to speak at the meeting and have an electronic presentation to show, please submit it to [email protected] no later than 12 PM on the day of the meeting.

Levine Act Disclosure. Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $250 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.

Thank you,
The City Clerk’s Office
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 13 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F/Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I oppose Councilmember Zwick's request that the City Council approve the City taking a "Support" position on both SB79 (Weiner) and SB 677 (Weiner).

They are both extremely radical bills that essentially and forever change all of Santa Monica. I encourage and ask that the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these bills not endorse or support them.

SB 79 overrides our local control of zoning! It would legalize tall, multi-family buildings anywhere within one half mile of a high-quality public transit stop. This means that virtually no block in the city would be spared from this designation! This means everything, R1, R2, R3, everything! These buildings could be up to 75 feet tall or even higher in some cases and a density of up to 120 per acre!
None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build any parking, none. There are no affordability requirements whatsoever for any of this. This bill has nothing to do with making Santa Monica more affordable.

On SB 677, this would continue to take more of our local control over our own zoning by taking away the owner occupancy requirement for lot splits statewide. It would also remove the prohibition against multiple splits of the same urban lot. It would mean it would be legal to subdivide a 5000 sq ft parcel into 2 lots, and then subdivide those into 4 separate lots, with each of those having 4 units for a total of 16 units on a 5000 sq ft lot.

This is a giveaway to developers. It will be harder for regular people, regular Joe's, to buy land. SB 677 also erodes local control of multifamily housing projects in cities that have not met their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals or adopted a compliant housing element, which the state can subjectively decide.

In conclusion, I oppose both 16-E and 16-F. I want and believe that City councils should have the authority to make planning and land use decisions for their cities and their residents, not state legislators. I am encouraging the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these two bills.

Thank you.

Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 14 David Yakobson
From: Soledad Ramos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 7:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to you as a concerned resident who has lived in Santa Monica for over 25 years, regarding the proposed bills SB 79 and SB 677.

I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and to take a clear stand against them.

Both of these bills represent a dangerous shift away from our community’s ability to manage local planning and zoning.

They would permanently alter the character of Santa Monica, forcing unchecked development onto our neighborhoods.

Without major upgrades to infrastructure, schools, and traffic systems, the city will be overwhelmed — with severe consequences for both current and future residents.

I urge you to stand with the residents of Santa Monica and oppose both SB 79 and SB 677.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Soledad Ramos
2609 Cloverfield blvd
cel: 310 927 1811
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 15 David Yakobson
From: darkosuvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 7:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Urgent : Opposing SB 79 and SB 677 for Santa Monica’s Future!!!!

EXTERNAL
Begin forwarded message:

From: darkosuvak <[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent : Opposing SB 79 and SB 677 for Santa Monica’s Future!!!! Date: April 7, 2025 at 19:10:03 PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: DARKO Suvak <[email protected]>
Dear Members of the City Council,
As a resident of Santa Monica for over 25 years I am compelled to express my strong opposition to Senate Bills 79 and 677. These legislative proposals pose a severe threat to the very structure of our community by drastically altering our local zoning laws and giving undue advantage to developers over the residents.

Senate Bill 79, known as the Abundant & Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, would mandate highdensity housing near public transit systems, essentially stripping local governments like ours of the power to control zoning within a half-mile radius of these transit stops. This bill would transform almost every neighborhood in Santa Monica, allowing multi-family buildings up to 75 feet tall, potentially on every block, without any requirement for parking spaces or consideration for the current community landscape.

Senate Bill 677 continues this troubling trend by seeking to enhance housing production at the expense of local zoning authority. This bill would further erode our control by facilitating the subdivision of lots and intensification of land use, potentially quadrupling the number of units on a single 5000 square foot lot without ensuring any measures for affordability or community fit.

Both of these bills not only undermine our city’s autonomy but also threaten to irreversibly alter the character of our neighborhoods without addressing the root causes of the housing affordability crisis in California. They cater excessively to the interests of developers, risking the displacement of long-standing communities and increasing the strain on our local infrastructure.

I urge you to consider the long-term consequences of these bills.

It is critical that our city takes a firm stance by enacting a resolution to oppose both SB 79 and SB 677.

We must preserve our ability to make decisions that align with the needs and wishes of Santa Monica’s residents.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 16 Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Darko Suvak
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 17 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 7:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose.

EXTERNAL
In a message dated 4/7/2025 6:39:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Dear Mayo Negrete and City Council members:

As a 56-year resident of Santa Monica, I urge you to oppose Agenda Items 16E and 16F.

Both measures assign authority over city property to the state, rather than to its City Council.

Item 16E overrides local control of zoning in order to legalize inordinately tall, multifamily buildings without requiring affordability or parking requirements.

Item 16-F erodes local control over zoning, including allowing multiple splits of individual lots.

Please assure Santa Monica residents that their City Council will retain its authority over planning and land use decisions.

Do not allow developers and speculators to interfere with local authority.

Thank you for respecting Santa Monica's right to control its zoning.

Best,
Katharine R. Dreyfuss
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 18 David Yakobson
From: Ivana Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 7:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and to take a clear stand against them.

I urge you to stand with the residents of Santa Monica and oppose both SB 79 and SB 677.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Ivana Suvak
32nd Street resident
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 19 David Yakobson
From: Sarit Marcus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 6:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F

EXTERNAL
LETTER FROM FRIENDS OF SUNSET PARK BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE!
The FOSP Board opposes Councilmember Zwick’s request that the City Council approve the City taking a “Support” position on both SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener).

These are extremely radical bills that would fundamentally and forever change all of Santa Monica. We encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these bills instead.

None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. There are no affordability requirements for any of this. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 20 Thank you,
Sarit Marcus
Residential home owner at 2432 32nd St
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 1 David Yakobson
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 4:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F -- STRONGLY OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 at 04:04:02 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F -- STRONGLY OPPOSE Thank you, Hilary.

Please forward your email to [email protected] so it gets into the public record.

Zina Josephs
FOSP Secretary
******************************************************* In a message dated 4/7/2025 3:40:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

To: Mayor Negrete and City Council Members
From: Hilary Galanoy, Santa Monica City Resident (2636 32nd Street) RE: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE!
I strongly oppose Councilmember Zwick’s request that the City Council approve the City taking a “Support” position on both SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener).

These are extremely radical bills that would fundamentally and forever change all of Santa Monica. Having grown up in Santa Monica and returning to live here 10+ years ago, I encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these bills instead.

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 2 city would be spared from this designation. That means, R1, R2, R3, everything. On even the quietest streets of our beautiful city, these buildings could be up to 75 feet tall, or even higher in certain cases, with a density of up to 120 units per acre.

None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. There are no affordability requirements for any of this. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.

This is a giveaway to developers, making it harder for normal people to buy land.

SB 677 also further erodes local control of multifamily housing projects in cities that have not met their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals or adopted a compliant housing element, which the state can subjectively decide.

Again, I oppose both 16-E and 16-F. I believe that City Council should have the authority to make planning and land use decisions for their cities and their residents, rather than the state legislature. To that end, we encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these two bills.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1374 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 4:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F

EXTERNAL
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 at 04:01:44 PM PDT
Subject: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F
As a long time resident of Santa Monica I oppose
agenda items 16-E and 16-F !
It is a disaster in the making !
For owners as well as renters, even for tourists.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1375 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 2 David Yakobson
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 4:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SB 79 and SB 677 ------ I oppose

EXTERNAL
I strongly oppose
SB 79 and SB 677 and urge
the council to stand up for Santa Monica !!
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1376 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 3 David Yakobson
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 3:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
To: City Council members
From: Katherine Reuter, 1210 Grant St., Santa Monica 90405 RE: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE!
I oppose Councilmember Zwick’s request that the City Council approve the City taking a “Support” position on both SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener).

These are extremely radical bills that would fundamentally and forever change all of Santa Monica. I encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these bills instead.

None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. There are no affordability requirements for any of this. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.

Again, I oppose both 16-E and 16-F. I believe that City Council should have the authority to make planning and land use decisions for the city and its residents, rather than the state legislature. To that end, I encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these two bills.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1377 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 4 David Yakobson
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 2:49 PM
To: Council Mailbox; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
As a 13 year Santa Monica resident, I oppose Council member Jesse Zwick’s request that the City Council approve the City taking a “Support” position on both SB 79 and SB 677. Decisions regarding land use and development should remain with the city, not the state.

SB 79 overrides local control of zoning to legalize buildings up to 75 feet tall, or even higher in certain cases, with a density of up to 120 units per acre almost everywhere in the city. It also does not require parking as part of the development and has no affordability requirements. All decisions that would massively increase density without doing anything to address housing affordability.

SB 677 erodes local control over zoning by lifting the owner occupancy requirement for lot splits and removing the prohibition against multiple splits of the same lot. Essentially a 5000 square foot lot could be subdivided four times with multiple units per division resulting in massive density. This is a giveaway to developers that will make it harder for people to buy houses.

The city should retain control of such urban planning decisions - not the state.

Regards,
Will
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1378 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 5 David Yakobson
From: John Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 2:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda items 16E and 16F-OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Please add to the public record.

John Reynolds
Kavich Reynolds Productions
Dear Mayor Negrete and Council Members,
I just read the Friends of Sunset Park opposition email regarding items 16E and 16F and I can't think of anything else to add except that I've lived in Santa Monica for 25 years and have witnessed a steady decline in support of homeowners and renters at the expense of Developers.

It's very disheartening!
I urge you to oppose these radical overtures from the State Legislature.

Respectfully,
John Reynolds
3217 17th Street
213-598-2120
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1379 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 1 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:53 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Oppose Council Agenda Items 16E and 16F on April 8, 2025 City Council Agenda Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must ask you to oppose Agenda Items 16E and 16F on April 8, 2025 City Council agenda.

SB 79 overrides our local control of zoning to legalize tall, multi-family buildings anywhere within one-half mile of a high-quality public transit stop. This would encompass almost all of Santa Monica, including R1, R2, R3. If this bill passes buildings of up to 75 feet tall would be allowed throughout the city. Under SB 79 there would be no parking required and no affordability.

SB 677 would invite developer speculation by lifting the owner occupancy requirement for lot splits. If passed, SB 677 would remove the prohibition against multiple splits of the same urban lot, making it legal to subdivide a 5000 square foot parcel into 2 lots, and then subdivide those 2 to create 4 separate lots, each of which can have 4 units, resulting in 16 units on a 5000 square foot lot. Our City Council must not participate in this destructive legislation that would stimulate speculation and drive up the cost of home ownership.

SB 677 also further erodes local control of multifamily housing projects if the State decides a city has not met its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals or adopted a compliant housing element.

I ask you to Oppose both SB79 and SB 677. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 9:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Subject: We ask you to Oppose both SB79 and SB 677 to protect Santa Monica City Charm & Integrity! April 8th
Attachments: Snapshot-50976.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
As a 30 year resident and home owner of Santa Monica.

We ask you to Oppose both SB79 and SB 677 to protect Santa Monica City Charm & Integrity.

We Santa Monicans want to PRESERVE our precious town…
@ This moment there are still hundreds of vacant apartments..

Housing is not our dire issue …
*SAFETY, the Success of our Businesses and Stopping homeless proliferation; *Stopping Needle Distribution in our PARKS and Public Spaces.. Preventing Crime and Increasing Tourism...
*These are our Santa Monica Priorities and Concerns.
*Senator Weiners “Initiatives" Do Not Represent the needs of Santa Monica, Los Angeles, SF or California….

We the citizens of Santa Monica determine the needs of our city..

Zwick and the City Council need to Represent Their Constituents wants..

Not prioritize others agendas.. Who are not familiar with our City and our Needs..

We need the SM City Council to Serve your Santa Monica constituents.. That’s what we vote for..

The recent SM survey March 2025 was very clear about Santa Monica Residents priorities.

Please Listen to your Constituents….and Prioritize Accordingly.

Review the SM Community Survey of over 1000 Residents...

Here is Your- Our SM Community Survey March 2025….

Please Listen and Start Addressing and Prioritizing Our SM Concerns… Our City Needs Your Help and Focus..

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 3 Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1382 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) To: Mr. Oscar Santiago, Finance Director
City of Santa Monica
From: Steve Mermell, Special Advisor
Suzanne Martin, Senior Consultant
Sarona Vivanco, Senior Consultant
Subject: Community Budget Outreach Results
Date: February 27, 2025
The City of Santa Monica engaged Baker Tilly to facilitate a series of budget outreach community meetings and administer an on-line community survey, to inform and engage members of the public regarding the City’s financial condition, budget priorities and the allocation of City resources. This memorandum summarizes the results of both the community meetings and the survey. City staff undertook significant messaging and distribution of materials to get the word out to the public about both the meetings and the survey, including issuing a press release, developing a flyer, and posting on the City’s blog and social media.

Community Meetings
Baker Tilly conducted three community meetings (two in-person and one virtual). The topics that were discussed at each meeting included:
• An overview of the purpose of the budget;
• The City’s budget cycle and process;
• General Fund revenues, operating expenditures, and reserves; • Factors impacting the City’s finances;
• Recent voter approved measures; and
• The City’s five adopted priority areas and performance measures for each.

City staff were available at all three meetings to answer questions from members of the public. The City staff who attended the meetings included the Deputy City Manager, Finance Director, and others.

A summary of the three meetings is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Community Meeting Attendance
Community Meeting Location
Attendees from
the Public
(approximate)
Thursday, February 6; 6:00 pm (in-person) Main Library Multipurpose Room 12 Thursday, February 13; 6:00 pm (virtual) Zoom 11
Tuesday, February 18; 6:30 pm (in-person) Pico Branch Library Annex 6 Priorities
Baker Tilly deployed the on-line tool, Mentimeter, to administer group polls about the City’s adopted priorities at each of the community meetings. Participants logged into Mentimeter on their smartphone or laptop and answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to questions for each priority, asking whether it was still relevant, important, and appropriate. A summary of the responses received during all three meetings were consolidated and are provided in Figure 1 below.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Figure 1. Importance, Relevance, and Appropriateness of Existing Priorities Participants were then given an opportunity to provide one word to describe other priorities that they thought should be considered by the City. The responses that were provided are listed below. The number of duplicate responses received are indicated in the parentheses. • Aquatics
• Artificial intelligence
• Assistive technology
• Buildings maintained
• Cleanliness
• Community events
• Concerts
• Crime reduction
• Deferred maintenance (2)
• Economic recovery
• Electrification
• Help homeless population (2)
• Increase housing density
• Keep the airport
• Library (10)
• Live music
• More field space
• More housing
• Parks
• Protect small businesses
• Protected bike lanes
• Public events
• Recovery
• Restoring youth services
• Safe streets
• Safety (3)
• School funding
• Small businesses
• Spiritual counselors
• Revitalizing Third Street (3)
• Upgrade the Promenade
• Walkable areas
• Workout access at parks
• Youth (2)
Community Survey
Baker Tilly deployed a survey in English and Spanish to obtain input from community members about areas of priority focus for the City of Santa Monica. The City was interested in hearing from community members about priorities and which City services and programs are most important to them, as staff develops the budget for the next two years. The survey questions were developed by Baker Tilly and were refined with the City’s project team. SurveyMonkey™ was used to conduct the survey and compile the anonymous responses. The questions that were asked in the survey are provided in Attachment A.

The survey was open from January 29 to February 19, 2025, and received a total of 1,293 responses (1,288 in English and 5 in Spanish). It should be noted that the survey is not the same as a statistically 26 26
23 13
19 4
1 5
14 9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Addressing Homelessness
Clean & Safe Santa Monica
Cultivate Economic Recovery & Expand
Community & Cultural Offerings
Racial Justice, Equity & Social Diversity
Sustainable & Connected Community
Yes No
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) valid voter survey conducted by pollsters; however, the response rate was very good, largely due to the City’s efforts pushing the information out to the community.

The survey was designed to elicit feedback from community members in the following areas to provide insight into the allocation and prioritization of City resources. • Quality level of City services
• City services impacted by the pandemic
• Greatest neighborhood needs
• Overarching City strategic priorities
In addition, specific questions regarding how the City can support the local business and non-profit communities were asked of respondents who indicated they were a business owner or employee of a non-profit, respectively.

Key Findings
• The three City services that received the most excellent or good quality responses include:
o Providing clean water and maintaining water infrastructure o Fighting fires and providing emergency services
o Collecting trash and recycling from homes
• The three City services that received the most fair or poor quality responses include:
o Dealing with the regional homelessness crisis
o Addressing crime
o Protecting public safety
• The top three responses for City services that were negatively impacted by the pandemic and not fully recovered include:
o Housing and homeless services
o Library services
o Public safety services
• The top three responses for neighborhood needs include:
o Addressing homelessness
o Public safety
o Affordable housing
• When asked about the City’s existing five priorities, 80% or more respondents answered that Addressing Homelessness and Clean and Safe continue to be very important. By comparison, fewer than 30% indicated that Justice, Equity, and Diversity was very important, and fewer than 40% indicated that Sustainable and Connected was very important.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) City Services
Questions were posed to gauge respondents’ thoughts about the quality of City services that Santa Monia provides. Of the services listed, respondents were asked whether the quality was excellent, good, fair, or poor. If the respondent was neutral or didn’t know, they could indicate that as well. Responses to these questions are presented in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Quality of City Services
112
349
91 218
94 342
70 167
154
163
153
157
159
158
62 112
20 70
156
56 89
326
121
31 551
534
430
390
423
468
357
464
483
439
480
503
418
276
230
375
98 164
342
255
332
503
397
130
201
121
248
153
231
156
188
288
239
253
153
169
268
192
253
272
133
220
206
184
263
173
239
229
194
144
214
169
280
89 277
131
203
120
187
204
112
111
177
222
223
183
233
237
157
101
245
157
162
61 260
174
214
92 356
76 148
67 240
179
98 110
242
218
739
333
280
478
178
65 208
386
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Providing city services overall
Collecting trash and recycling from your home
Keeping traffic on City streets flowing smoothly
Providing library services
Maintaining and repairing streets and sidewalks
Fighting fires and providing emergency services
Keeping City streets and alleys clean
Providing cultural and arts opportunities
Keeping street trees trimmed
Providing recreation and sports programs
Maintaining City parks
Maintaining City beaches
Making Santa Monica environmentally sustainable
Responding to 911 calls
Enforcing City building, zoning, health, and safety codes Communicating with residents
Dealing with the regional homelessness crisis
Providing services for the homeless
Providing enough public parking
Addressing crime and protecting public safety
Preparing for an emergency
Providing clean water and maintaining water infrastructure Cleaning up litter and graffiti
Managing City finances
Excellent Quality Good Quality Neutral Fair Quality Poor Quality Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Respondents were asked to indicate up to three services that they felt were negatively impacted during the pandemic and are not yet fully recovered. Responses to this question are provided in Table 2 below, and are listed in order of response rate.

Table 2. What City services do you feel were most negatively impacted during the pandemic and are still not fully recovered?
Answer Choices Response
Housing and homeless services 600 (46.4%)
Library services 468 (36.2%)
Public safety services 460 (35.6%)
Parks and recreation services (such as neighborhood parks, camps, classes, Swim Center, community gardens) 311 (24.1%)
Maintenance services (such as graffiti removal, tree trimming, street light repair, street sweeping) 310 (24.0%)
Business services (licenses and permits) 267 (20.6%)
Youth services 129 (10.0%)
Transportation services (such as Big Blue Bus, bike and scooter share) 91 (7.0%) Senior services 84 (6.5%)
Other (please specify) 252 (19.5%)
Other services indicated are included in Attachment B.

Respondents were asked to select up to five items that represent their neighborhood’s greatest needs.

Responses to this question are provided in Table 3 below, and are listed in order of response rate.

Table 3. What do you think are the areas of greatest need in your neighborhood? Answer Choices Response
Addressing homelessness 942 (73.1%)
Public safety 668 (51.8%)
Affordable housing 484 (37.4%)
Mental health services 423 (32.6%)
Mobility and safe streets 418 (32.3%)
Street maintenance and repair 347 (26.9%)
Parks maintenance and programs 301 (23.4%)
Economic development and job opportunities 292 (22.5%)
Sustainability and climate change 176 (13.6%)
Childcare 161 (12.4%)
Public transportation 142 (11.0%)
Equity and inclusion 82 (6.4%)
Healthcare 64 (5.0%)
Other (please specify) 315 (24.4%)
Other needs indicated are included in Attachment B.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Priorities
The survey listed the five existing strategic priorities. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of each priority. The survey responses are summarized in Figure 3 below. The same information is presented in Table 4.

Figure 3. Please indicate how important each of these priorities is to you as it represents the interests and values of the community.

Table 4. Please indicate how important each of these priorities is to you as it represents the interests and values of the community.

Priority Very
Important
Somewhat
Important Neutral Somewhat Unimportant
Not At All
Important
Don’t
Know / Not
Applicable
Addressing Homelessness 1,001 (80.0%) 138 (11.0%) 40 (3.2%) 24 (1.9%) 43 (3.4%) 6 (0.5%) Justice, Equity, and
Diversity 356 (28.7%) 258 (20.8%) 184 (14.8%) 119 (9.6%) 317 (25.5%) 9 (0.7%) Clean and Safe 1,067 (85.3%) 151 (12.1%) 22 (1.8%) 7 (0.6%) 2 (0.2%) 2 (0.2%) Sustainable and Connected 461 (37.1%) 355 (28.6%) 203 (16.4%) 91 (7.3%) 119 (9.6%) 12 (1.0%) Economic Growth and
Cultural Vitality 668 (53.6%) 368 (29.5%) 124 (9.9%) 39 (3.1%) 38 (3.0%) 10 (0.8%) Respondents had the opportunity to provide additional priorities for the City to consider. Other priorities indicated are included in Attachment B.
1,001
356
1,067
461
668
138
258
151
355
368
40 184
22 203
124
24 119
7 91
39 43
317
2 119
38 0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Addressing
Homelessness
Justice, Equity, and
Diversity
Clean and Safe Sustainable and
Connected
Economic Growth and
Cultural Vitality
Very Important Somewhat Important Neutral Somewhat Unimportant Not At All Important Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Who Submitted Responses?
Tables 5 through 13 show the percentage breakdown of respondent demographics. The percentages do not always total to 100% because respondents may have indicated “other” in one or more of the responses, and in some cases, respondents were asked to select all options that apply.

Summary
• Nealy one-third of respondents are between 31 to 45 years old; one third is 46 to 60 years old, and the last third is over 60 years old.
• The majority of respondents (62%) are female.
• About half of respondents (52%) are homeowners.
• Most respondents (71%) identify as white.
• Some of the open-ended responses expressed frustration over being asked about race and sexual orientation in a budget survey.

Table 5. What is your age range?
Answer Choices Response
Under 18 years old 2 (0%)
18 to 30 years old 56 (5%)
31 to 45 years old 383 (32%)
46 to 60 years old 383 (32%)
Over 60 years old 376 (32%)
Table 6. What is your gender?
Answer Choices Response
Male 435 (36%)
Female 739 (62%)
Non-binary 10 (1%)
Not listed 10 (1%)
Table 7. Do you own or rent your residence?
Answer Choices Response
Own 626 (52%)
Rent 548 (46%)
Currently occupying without paying monetary rent 17 (1%) Not sure 9 (1%)
Table 8. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? Answer Choices Response
Yes 155 (13%)
No 1,006 (87%)
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Table 9. What is your race?
Answer Choices Response
White 880 (71%)
Black or African American 42 (4%)
American Indian or Alaska Native 14 (1%)
Asian 103 (9%)
Other (please specify) 125 (11%)
Table 10. What is your sexual orientation?
Answer Choices Response
Heterosexual (straight) 943 (85%)
Homosexual (gay or lesbian) 46 (4%)
Bisexual 25 (2%)
Pansexual 12 (2%)
Asexual 4 (0%)
Other (please specify) 73 (7%)
Table 11. Are you a member of Santa Monica’s LGBTQIA+ Community? Answer Choices Response
Yes 97 (9%)
No 997 (91%)
Table 12. Including yourself, how many people currently live in your household? Answer Choices Response
1 237 (20%)
2 419 (36%)
3 203 (17%)
4 226 (19%)
5 67 (6%)
More than 5 23 (2%)
Table 13. Which of the following best describes your relationship with the City of Santa Monica? Answer Choices Response
Business owner in Santa Monica 264 (21%)
Employee of a non-profit in Santa Monica 60 (5%)
Resident of Santa Monica 1,134 (90%)
Student 51 (4%)
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Work in Santa Monica 400 (46%)
Shop/do business in Santa Monica 583 (46%)
City of Santa Monica employee 53 (4%)
Member of a board, commission, or committee 112 (9%)
Other (please specify) 97 (8%)
Other relationships with the City of Santa Monica mostly fell into the following categories: parent of SMMUSD students, homeowner, volunteer, member of an organization or group in Santa Monica.

Santa Monica Business Questions
The survey asked business owners to indicate their type of business. Of the 264 respondents who indicated they are business owners, 234 responded to this question. The major categories of businesses that were provided are listed below.
• Arts and entertainment
o Acting coach
o Art
o Entertainment
o Film production / animation
o Music
o Photography
o Talent management and production
• Health and wellness
o Acupuncture clinic
o Beauty/personal care
o Counseling
o Dental practice
o Fitness
o Health and wellness
o Medical care
o Physical therapy
• Business and professional services
o Advertising
o Book marketing
o Business manager
o Consulting services
o Copywriting and marketing communications
o Finance / investment services
o Legal services
o Marketing agency
o Notary public
o Professional services
o Real estate /property management
o Technology
o Writing services
• Construction and home services
o Architecture and planning
o Construction
o Custom window treatments
o Electrical
o Landscaping
• Retail and e-commerce
o Clothing originals
o E-commerce
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) o Gift store
o Retail
• Food and hospitality
o Clothing originals
o E-commerce
o Gift store
o Retail
• Freelance and creative/technology services
o Freelance digital artists
o Freelancing writing/producing
o Graphic design
o Interactive media
o Media - travel writer - concierge
o Media tech: interactive, streaming, startups
• Community/miscellaneous services
o Coaching
o Community classes instructor
o Youth programs
o Childcare
o Environmental
o Hobby/community place
o Housing provider
o Pet care
o Taekwondo school
o Trapeze school
o Travel
Business owners were asked to provide the number of employees in their business. Half of the business owners have just one employee. A summary of the responses is provided below.

Table 14. How many employees does your business have?
Answer Choices Response
1 114 (50.0%)
2 to 10 88 (38.6%)
11 to 50 21 (9.2%)
51 to 100 1 (0.4%)
Greater than 100 4 (1.8%)
The survey asked business owners how the City can best support the local business community.

Responses to this question are provided below.

Table 15. How can the City best support the local business community? Please check all that apply.

Answer Choices Response
Restore funding to the Capital Program to provide things like better maintenance, lighting, and other improvements to public spaces. 98 (41.4%) Develop a more robust economic development program to help promote the city as an attractive choice to open a business. 134 (56.5%) Create more flexibility in the payment of city fees over time. 52 (21.9%) Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Invest in technology to improve online services for permitting and business license. 84 (35.4%)
Other (please specify) 110 (46.4%)
The 110 open-ended responses to other ways the City can best support the local business community are summarized into categories below.
• Public Safety & Homelessness
o Reduce crime and clean up the city to make it more attractive for businesses and residents.
o Improve the cleanliness and safety of public areas like parking structures and freeway exits.
o Increase police presence, enforce laws, and ensure public safety in streets, parks, and public spaces to make the city feel safer for residents and visitors. o Ensure protections against fires in older areas and improve disaster preparedness. • Business and Economic Development
o Make it easier for retail and entertainment businesses to exist by reducing red tape, providing business incentives, and offering grants or rent vouchers for small businesses. o Encourage new real estate development, lower city taxes, and provide affordable leases and commercial rental space options.
o Promote business incubators and startup funding, prioritize hiring local businesses for City projects, and provide fast payment options for City suppliers. o Support small businesses through grants and financial assistance, and streamline the permitting process to make it easier to open and maintain businesses in Santa Monica. • Infrastructure and Services
o Improve street safety and cleanliness.
o Install citywide fiber internet.
o Provide more parking options with fewer restrictions. o Enhance public infrastructure by maintaining working-class housing and preventing overdevelopment.
o Ensure proper tree trimming and urban forest maintenance. • Community Engagement and Support
o Become more active in the tech startup community.
o Support local businesses through Chamber of Commerce programming. o Promote the current businesses of residents.
o Encourage community well-being programs and provide safe meeting spaces for businesses.
• Miscellaneous Suggestions & Comments
o Terminate DEI programs.
o Abandon sustainability initiatives.
o Focus on fiscal responsibility over ideology.

Santa Monica Non-Profit Questions
The survey asked non-profit employees to indicate their organization’s primary mission, the 39 responses provided fell into the categories listed below.
• Healthcare
• Community support and development
• Education
• Arts and culture
• Environment and sustainability
• Childcare and youth services
• Animal welfare
• Business and research
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Non-profit employees were asked to indicate whether their non-profit receives any City grant funding. The answers to this question are provided below.

Table 16. Do you receive any grant funding?
Answer Choices Response
Yes 20 (42.6%)
No 22 (46.8%)
Other (please specify) 5 (10.6%)
The five “other” responses are listed below.
• My workplace does, not me as an individual.
• No funding has ever been received. It is urgently needed and would be appreciated. • Not sure.
• Have gotten art of recovery grants.
• I don't know.

The survey asked non-profit employees how the City can best support the local non-profit community.

Responses to this question are summarized below.
• Increase funding and grant opportunities.
• Create more opportunities for city engagement and support for cultural events. • Provide free community events to foster joy and neighborly connection. • Continue to restore sustainability programs.
• Help connect businesses to non-profits for additional support. • Address homelessness with clear information about local resources and expand support beyond residency restrictions.
• Improve library services, support cultural events, and provide spaces for grantees to collaborate.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Conclusion
Responses to the survey indicate that homelessness, public safety (which is highly correlated to homelessness) and affordable housing are top concerns. That this is the case is not surprising, as these issues are ubiquitous throughout the state’s major metropolitan areas.

Respondents rated several City services highly particularly, the provision of clean water and maintaining water infrastructure, fighting fires and providing emergency services, and collecting trash and recycling from homes.

There was recognition that many City services had been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and had yet to fully recover to pre-pandemic levels. Given the importance respondents placed on homelessness and public safety in general, it is not surprising to see these two categories mentioned in this regard. The fact that library services were mentioned as the second most impacted service that has yet to recover is an indication of how valued the services are to the community.

Members of the business community who responded to the survey, are most interested in the City developing a more robust economic development strategy and increasing investments in maintaining the City’s appearance so as to create a welcoming environment which would support business activities.

The non-profit community would like to see an expansion of the City grant program as well as more opportunities to engage with the City and community at large. This could take the form of more Citysponsored community events.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Attachment A – Community Survey Questions
City Services 1. Thinking about the City services listed below, indicate the level of service quality that the City of Santa Monica provides.

Services Excellent
Quality
Good
Quality Neutral Fair Quality
Poor
Quality
Don’t Know /
Not
Applicable
a. Providing city services overall
b. Collecting trash and recycling from your home
c. Keeping traffic on City streets flowing smoothly
d. Providing library services
e. Maintaining and repairing streets and sidewalks
f. Fighting fires and providing emergency services
g. Keeping City streets and alleys clean
h. Providing cultural and arts opportunities
i. Keeping street trees trimmed
j. Providing recreation and sports programs
k. Maintaining City parks
l. Maintaining City beaches
m. Making Santa Monica environmentally
sustainable
n. Responding to 911 calls
o. Enforcing City building, zoning, health, and
safety codes
p. Communicating with residents
q. Dealing with the regional homelessness crisis
r. Providing services for the homeless
s. Providing enough public parking
t. Addressing crime and protecting public safety
u. Preparing for an emergency
v. Providing clean water and maintaining water
infrastructure
w. Cleaning up litter and graffiti
x. Managing City finances

2. What City services do you feel were most negatively impacted during the pandemic and are still not fully recovered? Please select your top three.
• Business services (licenses and permits)
• Housing and homeless services
• Library services
• Maintenance services (such as graffiti removal, tree trimming, street light repair, street sweeping)
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) • Parks and recreation services (such as neighborhood parks, camps, classes, Swim Center, community gardens)
• Public safety services
• Senior services
• Transportation services (such as Big Blue Bus, bike and scooter share) • Youth services
• Other (please specify)

3. What do you think are the areas of greatest need in your neighborhood? Please select your top five.

Need First Priority Second
Priority
Third Priority Fourth
Priority
Fifth Priority
Addressing homelessness
Affordable housing
Childcare
Economic development and job
opportunities
Equity and inclusion
Healthcare
Mental health services
Mobility and safe streets
Parks maintenance and programs
Public safety
Public transportation
Street maintenance and repair
Sustainability and climate change
Other (please specify)
Priorities
The City Council’s five strategic priorities highlight the City’s values, inform recommendations on new investments, and focus staff efforts and projects. The five existing strategic priorities are listed below. • Addressing Homelessness Preventing housed Santa Monicans from becoming homeless, increasing the supply of affordable housing, and advocating for regional capacity to address homelessness.
• Justice, Equity, and Diversity Advancing racial equity, justice, and social diversity to improve the well-being of people who live, work, learn, play, and do business here. • Clean and Safe Commitment to maintaining and enhancing an atmosphere marked by clean and safe public spaces and neighborhoods.
• Sustainable and Connected Enhancing our resources, preventing and remedying harm to the natural environment and human health, and benefiting the social and economic wellbeing of the community. • Economic Growth and Cultural Vitality Cultivating economic opportunity and recovery and investing in amenities and programs for all community members.

4. Please indicate how important each of these priorities is to you, as representing the interests and values of the community.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Priority Very
Important
Somewhat
Important Neutral Somewhat Unimportant
Not At All
Important
Don’t Know /
Not
Applicable
Addressing
Homelessness
Justice, Equity, and
Diversity
Clean and Safe
Sustainable and
Connected
Economic Growth and
Cultural Vitality

5. If you think other strategic priorities should be considered, as the City develops the next budget and allocates resources, please list those items in the spaces below.

Demographic Questions
Please note, all demographic questions except #14 on this page are optional.

6. What is your age range?
• Under 18 years old
• 18 to 30 years old
• 31 to 45 years old
• 46 to 60 years old
• Over 60 years old

7. What is your gender?
• Male
• Female
• Bon-binary
• Not listed

8. Do you own or rent your residence?
• Own
• Rent
• Currently occupying without paying monetary rent
• Not sure

9. Are you of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
• Yes
• No

10. What is your race? Please check all that apply.
• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Other (please specify)

11. What is your sexual orientation?
• Heterosexual (straight)
• Homosexual (gay or lesbian)
• Bisexual
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) • Pansexual
• Asexual
• Other (please specify)

12. Are you part of Santa Monica’s LGBTQIA+ community?
• Yes
• No

13. Including yourself, how many people currently live in your household? • 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• More than 5

14. Which of the following best describes your relationship with the City of Santa Monica? Please check all that apply.
• Business owner in Santa Monica
• Employee of a non-profit in Santa Monica
• Resident of Santa Monica
• Student
• Work in Santa Monica
• Shop/do business in Santa Monica
• City of Santa Monica employee
• Member of a board, commission, or committee
• Other (please specify)
Santa Monica Business Questions

15. Please indicate your type of business in the space provided.

16. Please provide the number of employees in the space below.

17. How can the City best support the local business community? Please check all that apply. • Restore funding to the Capital Program to provide things like better maintenance, lighting, and other improvements to public spaces.
• Develop a more robust economic development program to help promote the city as an attractive choice to open a business.
• Create more flexibility in the payment of city fees over time. • Invest in technology to improve online services for permitting and business license. • Other (please specify)
Santa Monica Non-Profit Questions

18. What is the primary mission of your nonprofit?

19. Do you receive grant funding?
• Yes
• No
• Other (please specify)

20. How can the City of Santa Monica best support the local non-profit community? Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Attachment B – Open Ended Responses
The electronic survey included a number of open-ended questions, and opportunities for respondents to other options than the answer choices provided. The raw open-ended responses were provided to the City in a separate document. The open-ended responses that have been summarized into overarching themes for city services, greatest needs, and priorities are presented below.

City Services
What other City services do you feel were most negatively impacted during the pandemic and are not fully recovered? (251 responses)

1. Public Safety and Crime
• Addressing crime, drug abuse, gang presence, and ensuring safety in public spaces. • Increasing police presence, improving police response, training, and accountability. • Enforcing traffic laws, loitering, sleeping on streets, EV use on bike paths, speed limits, etc.

2. Homelessness
• Addressing homelessness with a focus on treatment programs, housing solutions, removing encampments, aggressive behavior, etc.
• Separating housing issues from homelessness.

3. Urban Development and Infrastructure
• Streamlining permitting processes, improving infrastructure (roads, sidewalks), addressing overdevelopment concerns.
• Planning for adaptive reuse of commercial properties, strategic urban planning. • Addressing poor city planning, dangerous lane markings.

4. Community Cleanliness and Environment
• Code enforcement
• Maintaining clean streets, alleys, parks; addressing litter, hazardous waste. • Protecting urban forest, planting more trees.
• Addressing climate change impacts, sustainability efforts.

5. Education
• Supporting early childhood programs
• Public school funding, quality education.
• Providing programs for kids (afterschool care).

6. Economic Development
• Supporting small businesses
• More affordable parklets
• Attracting new businesses to empty storefronts.
• Restoring closed businesses, lowering rent (residential/commercial).

7. Public Services
• Improving animal control/shelter services.
• Enhancing library services (hours), community events/programs. • Providing social services for disabled/unhoused/elderly/youth.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79)

8. Government Transparency and Accountability
• Ensuring fiscal responsibility (cutting waste), government transparency. • Monitoring landlords (slumlords), enforcing ordinances/laws.

9. Community Engagement
• Organizing arts events/local festivals.
• Revitalizing public spaces (promenade), creating communal locations.

10. Health and Well-being
• Providing mental health services/crisis intervention. • Ensuring safety near evacuation zones (toxin risks).

Areas of Greatest Need
What do you think are the areas of greatest need in your neighborhood? (314 responses)

1. Homelessness and safety
• Stop needle distribution in parks
• Address open drug use and remove homeless encampments • Increase safety and crime prevention
• Improve street safety with more stop signs and better traffic law enforcement

2. Funding and finance
• More funding for public schools, libraries, and non-profits • Better financial management
• Reducing taxes

3. Community and infrastructure
• Address issues like alley repaving and streetlight installation • Cleaner streets, parks, and beaches

4. Development and housing
• Concerns about overdevelopment and high commercial rents • Need for affordable housing
• Stop new apartment constructions and preserve single-family neighborhoods

5. Public services
• Improved communication from city services
• Better emergency preparedness
• Enhanced public education
• Better code enforcement
• Streamlined permitting processes

6. Environmental concerns
• Sustainability programs and clean water initiatives
• Proper tree maintenance to prevent diseases

7. Community engagement
• More community events
• Better support for local businesses
• Increased opportunities for city engagement
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Additional Priorities
If you think other strategic priorities should be considered, as the City develops the next budget and allocates resources, please list those items in the spaces below. (1,593 responses) The top 20 priorities that were mentioned most frequently are listed below. • Address empty commercial space
• Address homelessness
• Affordable housing
• Balance the City budget/financial management
• Clean up streets and beaches
• Code enforcement
• Drop DEI programs and spending
• Early childhood education
• Economic development
• Enforcing traffic laws; bike/pedestrian safety
• Expand library services/open hours
• Increase policing
• Keep the Santa Monica airport
• Manage development of apartments and condos
• Mental health services
• More funding/resources for our public schools
• Public safety and crime
• Revitalize downtown
• Street lights, pavement, repair
• Youth programs
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) Attachment C – Additional Comments
Some members of the public called or emailed with additional feedback for the City. The comments that were submitted are provided below verbatim.
• To be brief the 'community participation' is required for planning but is a complete waste of time because the decisions by the folks in charge are sometimes good and sometimes bad like the single lane for cars and the bike lane where the car that is parking opens their door in traffic and against the bike lane. The city is going to do what the city does. Like when my wife was sent by ambulance four blocks to St Johns and the bill was $2,400.00 because the city has a contract arrangement with McCormick! We all know that our input is a total waste of time and the council will do whatever they chose! I’m not shooting the messenger! • Whatever you do, please do NOT shut down the airport. It is absolutely needed and generates enormous income for the City. Do NOT close the airport. An absolute community necessity and huge source of income for the city. If closed, the cost to remediate will bankrupt the city. • Last night at the Ocean Park Neighborhood Association a member of the Board and Main Street Merchants Association said that the city is broke. Is that true? Alarming. If possible I would like to have a conversation with the finance department lead before the February 13, 2025 event. • Only if I have full control over the budget....I can do this and do it right! • Thank you for the information.
• I respectfully ask why would you need to provide interpreters for Spanish speakers? If they are doing business in Santa Monica, they should speak English or have someone to represent them who speaks English. Why should the city of Santa Monica sustain the expense of a Spanish interpreter? Will the city of SM also have Chinese and German, and Vietnamese interpreters? Santa Monica city taxes are already too high and this added expense will surely e passed on to us residents.? Please don't enable people who've come to our country to not blend into the American culture. I came from Italy and my parents did not speak English and we, the children had to interpret for them, which forced us to learn to speak English much faster. I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST HAVING SPANISH INTERPRETERS FOR BUSINESS OWNERS and I hope you will reconsider your decision.
• Homeowners pay so much in taxes in Santa Monica. It costs a LOT to live here, and some people are being forced out due to the cost. Not everyone has the right to live here. Yes, we need to address homelessness, but not the way the left-wing City Council thinks we should. We should not be spending more resources on the homeless population and encourage them to stay here, and more to come here. We need to discourage them from being here, make it inhospitable here.

Downtown used to be nice, but now it is dangerous due to crime.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1403 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 5 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 8:26 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Douglas Sloan; Elaine Polachek; Susan Cline; Christopher J. Smith; councilmtgitems
Subject: NE Neighbors Oppose Council Agenda Items 16E and 16F, Council Agenda of April 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Northeast Neighbors
RE: April 8, 2025 Council Agenda items 16E and 16F
As local elected officials you have already lost significant land use authority to the State with the passage of SB9, which ends single family neighborhood zoning. Why would the City Council choose to give over further governance of the city you were elected to represent? Members of the Board of Northeast Neighbors ask this Council to reject Councilmember Zwick’s requests in both Agenda items 16E and 16F in which he seeks unsolicited “Support” positions on two pieces of pending State legislation - SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener) - both of which would be destructive to our city.

We ask instead that the Council take a proactive “Oppose” position on both proposed bills, sending a strong message to Sacramento that you are not complicit in any further assault on the land use authority of our city by the State legislature.

Under SB 79 there would be no parking required and no affordability.

SB 677 would invite developer speculation by lifting the owner occupancy requirement for lot splits. If passed, SB 677 would remove the prohibition against multiple splits of the same urban lot, making it legal to subdivide a 5000 square foot parcel into 2 lots, and then subdivide those to create 4 separate lots, each of which can have 4 units, resulting in 16 units Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 6 on a 5000 square foot lot.

Our Council must not participate in this destructive legislation that would stimulate speculation and drive up the cost of home ownership.

Santa Monicans did not elect a City Council to surrender to the State its authority to make planning and land use decisions for our city.

We ask you to Oppose both SB79 and SB 677.

The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 4:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Armine Chaparyan; Elaine Polachek; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: FOSP: City Council 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F -- OPPOSE! Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
April 6, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F -- OPPOSE!
The FOSP Board opposes Councilmember Zwick’s request that the City Council approve the City taking a “Support” position on both SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener).

These are extremely radical bills that would fundamentally and forever change all of Santa Monica.

None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. There are no affordability requirements for any of this. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 8 This is a giveaway to developers, making it harder for normal people to buy land. SB 677 also further erodes local control of multifamily housing projects in cities that have not met their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals or adopted a compliant housing element, which the state can subjectively decide.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) 9 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 2:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: City Council 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F -- OPPOSE! Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
April 4, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F -- OPPOSE!
I strongly oppose Councilmember Zwick’s request that the City Council approve the City taking a “Support” position on both SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener).

SB 79 would legalize multi-family buildings within one-half mile of a high-quality public transit stop.

SB 677 -- Senate Bill 677 makes various changes to SB 9 and SB 423.

SB 9 requires ministerial approvals for duplexes and lot splits in single-family zoned districts statewide.

Again, I oppose both 16-E and 16-F.

The state has taken away so much planning authority from the cities that the Santa Monica Planning Commission has canceled both of its April meetings.

I believe that City Councils should have the authority to make planning and land use decisions for their cities and their residents, rather than the state legislature.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7031 : Support SB 79) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 8, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: 5. Request of Councilmember Zwick that the City Council approve the City taking a Support position on SB 677 (Wiener) Housing development:
streamlined approvals, which seeks to streamline approvals for housing development, and direct the City Manager to notify the City’s contract lobbyist and ensure a letter stating the City’s position on the legislation the state Assemblymember Rick Zbur and state Senator Ben Allen. (Attachment: SB 677)
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. SB 677
B. Written Comments

16.F
Packet Pg. 1409
SHARE THIS: Date Published: 04/01/2025 09:00 PM
SENATE BILL NO. 677
SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. (2025-2026) AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 01, 2025
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Senator Wiener
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Wicks)
February 21, 2025
An act to amend Section 4751 of the Civil Code, and to amend Sections 65852.21, 65913.4, and 66411.7 of the Government Code, and to amend Section 30500.1 of the Public Resources Code, relating to land use.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 677, as amended, Wiener. Housing development: streamlined approvals. (1) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements.

This bill would require ministerial approval for proposed housing developments containing no more than 2 residential units on any lot hosting a single-family home or zoned for 4 or fewer residential units, notwithstanding any covenant, condition, or restriction imposed by a common interest development association.

Existing law prohibits ministerial approval for proposed housing developments that would require the demolition or alteration of housing that, among other things, has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.

This bill would provide an exception to that prohibition for housing located in a county subject to a state of emergency declaration, as specified. The bill would also provide an exemption to the prohibition if a structure on the development site that includes at least one housing unit was involuntarily damaged or destroyed by an earthquake, other catastrophic event, or the public enemy.

Existing law authorizes a local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards on the proposed housing development, except as specified, including that (1) the imposed standards may not have the effect of physically precluding a unit from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, (2) a local agency’s authority to impose, among other things, setbacks, is restricted, and (3) the local agency is prohibited from imposing standards that do not apply uniformly to development within the underlying zone.

This bill would revise and recast those provisions to, among other things, as to the exceptions specified above, raise the minimum size of a unit to 1,750 net habitable square feet, revise a local agency’s authority to impose setbacks, and, in Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 1/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1410 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) addition to objective standards, prohibit a local agency from imposing permitting requirements that do not apply uniformly to development within the underlying zone, except as specified. The bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing a low-income deed restriction or covenant that restricts rents, as specified. The bill would prohibit local agencies from using or imposing any standards other than those provided by its provisions.

Existing law authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions.

This bill would require a local agency that has adopted an ordinance to submit a copy of that ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to review the ordinance and submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance is in compliance with these provisions. Should the department conclude an ordinance is not in compliance, the bill would establish a process for the department to notify the local agency and the local agency to amend the ordinance or adopt the ordinance without changes, as provided. The bill would require the local agency to include the ordinance with the annual housing element report.

The bill would prohibit a local agency from denying a proposed housing development due to the presence of preexisting issues under specified conditions, including that the issues do not present a threat to public health and safety.

The bill would also require a local agency to provide applicants with a single application for a housing development that falls under these provisions and also involves an urban lot split to review both applications concurrently.

This bill would prohibit the imposition of an impact fee, as defined, upon a proposed housing development that is less than 1,750 square feet and require any impact fees imposed on proposed developments of 1,750 square feet or greater to be charged proportionately.
(2) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards. These standards include that, among other things, the development is subject to a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of below market rate housing because the locality’s latest production report reflects there were fewer units of affordable housing issued building permits than required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that period and the project seeking approval dedicates 50 percent of the units to affordable housing, as specified. The standards include that the development is not located on a site that meets specified environmental criteria. The standards also include that the development is not located on a site that would require the demolition of specified types housing, including, among others, a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register.

The bill would revise the first planning standard so that it would be met if a development meets the above-described criteria and dedicates 20 percent of the units to affordable housing, as specified. The bill would revise the second planning standard so that it would be met if a development is not located within a site that meets specified criteria. The bill would revise the third planning standard to instead include a development is not located on a site that would require the demolition of a property individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources historic or of a contributing structure located within a historic district included on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. The bill would also exempt a proposed housing development from restrictions on demolition if a structure on the development site that includes at least one housing unit was involuntarily damaged or destroyed by an earthquake, other catastrophic event, or the public enemy.

Existing law provides that a development is consistent with the objective planning standards in these provisions if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent and prohibits a local government from determining a development is in conflict on a specified basis, as provided.

This bill would require the local government to bear the burden of proof in any evaluation of a development related to compliance with objective planning standards related to specified environmental criteria, as provided. The bill would require a local government to demonstrate, with a preponderance of the evidence, that the development does not comply with the applicable environmental criteria established under state or federal law, as provided.

Existing law defines a “reporting period” as either the first or last half of the regional housing needs assessment cycle.

This bill would require the reporting period to instead include each quarter of the regional housing needs assessment cycle.
(3) The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification of those maps.

Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, including that one parcel is not smaller than 40% of the lot area of the original parcel and the owner of the parcel being subdivided has not previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split, as provided. 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 2/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1411 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) This bill would remove the requirement that one parcel of a split lot be no smaller than 40% of the lot area of the original parcel and would exempt both newly created lots from following certain additional requirements, as specified. The bill would also remove the prohibition against owners who have previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split.

Existing law prohibits ministerial approval for a proposed urban lot split that would require the demolition or alteration of housing that, among other things, has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.

The bill would exempt a lot split from restrictions on demolition if a structure on the development site that includes at least one housing unit was involuntarily damaged or destroyed by an earthquake, other catastrophic event, or the public enemy.

Existing law authorizes a local agency, except as provided, to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards related to the design or improvements of a parcel subject to an urban lot split, including that the imposed standards may not have the effect of physically precluding a unit being constructed on either of the resulting parcels from being at least 800 square feet. Existing law allows a local agency to require specified conditions when considering an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split, including access requirements.

This bill would revise and recast those provisions to, among other things, prohibit a local agency from imposing standards that would have the effect of physically precluding an urban lot split from occurring or a unit being constructed on either of the resulting parcels from being at least 1,750 net habitable square feet. The bill would also revise and recast the restrictions on a local agency’s authority to impose a setback, as provided. The bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing a driveway requirement width requirement, as provided.

This bill would specify that a local agency’s access requirement may not physically preclude the lot split from occurring if another access method would facilitate the lot split.

The bill would require a local agency to provide applicants with a single application for an urban lot split that falls under these provisions and also includes a proposed housing development that falls under the provisions discussed above to review both applications concurrently.

Under existing law, a local agency must require an applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence, as specified.

This bill would remove the requirement that an applicant sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence and prohibit a local agency from using or imposing any additional standards, except as specified.

Existing law authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions.

The bill would require a local agency to ministerially review a condominium map that would subdivide a specified housing development, as provided. The bill would prohibit the imposition of an impact fee upon an urban lot split, as specified. (4) Existing law authorizes a local agency, by ordinance, to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in areas zoned for residential use and requires ministerial approval of ADUs, as specified.

Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the management and operation of common interest developments. Existing law makes void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meets the above-described requirements established for those units, except as provided.

This bill would, additionally, apply the above-described provisions to housing developments and urban lot splits receiving ministerial approval, as specified.
(5) Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, establishes the California Coastal Commission and prescribes the powers and responsibilities of the commission with regard to the regulation of development along the California coast.

The act prohibits a local coastal program from being required to include housing policies and programs.

This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to achieve the goal of increasing the supply of housing in the coastal 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 3/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1412 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) zone while also protecting coastal resources and public coastal access, as provided. On or by July 1, 2026, the bill would require any local government in the coastal zone that has not done so to submit an amendment to its local coastal program that harmonizes the act with the provisions of this bill concerning ministerial approval of proposed housing developments and urban lot splits, as provided. The bill would specify criteria that would allow a local government‘s amendment to be processed as de minimis, as specified.

Existing law specifies that proposed housing developments and urban lot splits considered ministerially under the abovedescribed provisions of this bill may be required to obtain a coastal development permit, but a local agency is not required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications, as provided.

This bill would instead specify that these provisions do not relieve a proposed housing development’s or urban lot split’s requirement to obtain a coastal development permit if the proposed activity would take place in the coastal zone, as provided.
(6) The bill would define key terms and make nonsubstantive and conforming changes. (7) By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a statemandated local program. (8) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (9) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 4751 of the Civil Code is amended to read:
4751. (a) Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meets the requirements of Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7, or of a housing development pursuant to Section 65852.21 of the Government Code, or an urban lot split pursuant to Section 66411.7 of the Government Code, is void and unenforceable. (b) This section does not apply to provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units or a housing development pursuant to Section 65852.21 of the Government Code or an urban lot split pursuant to 66411.7 of the Government Code. For purposes of this subdivision, “reasonable restrictions” means restrictions that do not unreasonably increase the cost to construct, effectively prohibit the construction of, or extinguish the ability to otherwise construct, an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit consistent with the provisions of Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7, or a housing development pursuant to Section 65852.21 of the Government Code, or an urban lot split pursuant to Section 66411.7 of the Government Code.

SEC. 2. Section 65852.21 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65852.21. (a) Notwithstanding any covenant, condition, or restriction set by an association, a proposed housing development containing no more than two residential units on any lot hosting a single-family home or zoned for four or fewer residential units shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all of the following requirements:
(1) The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is located within a city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(2) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.
(3) (A) Notwithstanding any provision of this section or any local law, the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 4/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (i) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate income, as defined in subdivision (m) of Section 65582, or lower income, as defined in subdivision (l) of Section 65582.
(ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
(iii) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years, except for housing in any county subject to a state of emergency declaration by the Governor, pursuant to Section 8625, provided the declaration was made prior to the date of tenancy, and the housing is occupied by a tenant for no more than 24 months from the date of the declaration.
(B) This paragraph shall not apply if a structure on the development site that includes at least one housing unit was involuntarily damaged or destroyed by an earthquake, other catastrophic event, or the public enemy. (4) The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is not a parcel on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
(5) The development is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance. (b) (1) (A) Notwithstanding any local law and except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a local agency may impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that do not conflict with this section.
(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local agency may only impose a front setback with respect to the original lot line.
(2) (A) The local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to two units or that would physically preclude either of the two units from being at least 1,750 net habitable square feet in floor area. (B) (i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), no setback, height limitation, lot coverage limitation, floor area ratio, or other standard that would limit residential development capacity shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and within the same dimensions as an existing structure. (ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in all other circumstances not described in clause (i), a local agency may require a setback from the original lot line of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines. (iii) A local agency shall not require a setback between the units, except as required in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). (3) A local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, objective design standards, or permitting requirements that do not apply uniformly to development within the underlying zone. This subdivision shall not prevent a local agency from adopting or imposing objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, objective design standards, or permitting requirements on development authorized by this section if those standards are more permissive than applicable standards within the underlying zone. (4) A local agency shall not require a deed restriction or covenant that restricts rents to the levels affordable to persons and families of moderate income, as defined in subdivision (m) of Section 65582, or lower income, as defined in subdivision (l) of Section 65582.
(5) This section establishes the maximum standards that a local agency shall use to evaluate a housing development proposed pursuant to this section. No additional standards, other than those provided in this section, shall be used or imposed, including an owner occupancy requirement.
(c) A local agency may require any of the following conditions when considering an application for two residential units as provided for in this section:
(1) Offstreet parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in any of the following instances:
(A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 5/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. (2) For residential units connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last 5 years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny a proposed housing development project if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
(e) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.
(f) Notwithstanding Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13, a local agency may permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on a parcel that uses the authority contained within this section and that was created pursuant to the authority contained in Section 66411.7. (g) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance.
(h) (1) An application for a proposed housing development pursuant to this section shall be considered and approved or denied within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application. If the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. (2) If a permitting agency denies an application for a proposed housing development pursuant to paragraph (1), the permitting agency shall, within the time period described in paragraph (1), return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.
(i) Local agencies shall include units constructed and any ordinance adopted pursuant to this section in the annual housing element report as required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400. (j) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
(1) A housing development contains two residential units if the development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit.
(2) The terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a local agency, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances. (3) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. (4) “Association” has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code. (5) “Urbanized area” means an urbanized area designated by the United States Census Bureau, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 77, Number 59, on March 27, 2012. (6) “Urban cluster” means an urbanized area designated by the United States Census Bureau, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 77, Number 59, on March 27, 2012. (7) “Net habitable square feet” means the finished and heated floor area fully enclosed by the inside surface of walls, windows, doors, and partitions, and having a headroom of at least six and one-half feet, including working, living, eating, cooking, sleeping, stair, hall, service, and storage areas, but excluding garages, carports, parking spaces, cellars, half-stories, and unfinished attics and basements. (k) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(1) A local agency shall submit a copy of the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to the department within 60 days after adoption. After adoption of an ordinance, the department may submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with this section. The local agency shall submit a copy of any existing ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to the department within 60 days of the date this act becomes effective. 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 6/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (2) (A) The department may review the ordinance and if the department finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall notify the local agency and shall provide the local agency with a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days, to respond to the findings before taking any other action authorized by this section.
(B) The local agency shall consider any findings made by the department pursuant to paragraph (1) and shall do one of the following:
(i) Amend the ordinance to comply with this section.
(ii) Adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite the findings of the department.
(3) If the local agency does not amend its ordinance in response to the department’s findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with this section and addressing the department’s findings, the department shall notify the local agency and may notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law.
(l) A local agency shall provide applicants with a single application for a housing development pursuant to this section and any urban lot split pursuant to Section 66411.7. Both applications shall be reviewed concurrently. (m) For a project located in the coastal zone, as specified in the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), this section does not relieve a project relying on the provisions of this section from the requirement to obtain a coastal development permit as required by Section 30600 of the Public Resources Code. Any standards to which the applicant is entitled under this section shall be permitted in a manner that is consistent with this section and does not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and public coastal access pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of Division 20 of the Public Resources Code. (n) The local agency shall not deny an application for a permit due to the presence of preexisting nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted structures that do not present a threat to public health and safety and are not affected by the construction of the unit or units. (o) (1) A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon a housing development proposed pursuant to this section of less than 1,750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for a housing development proposed pursuant to this section of 1,750 square feet or greater shall be charged proportionately. (2) For purposes of this subdivision, “impact fee” has the same meaning as the term “fee” as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66000, except that it also includes fees specified in Section 66477. “Impact fee” does not include any connection fee or capacity charge charged by a local agency, special district, or water corporation.

SEC. 3. Section 65913.4 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65913.4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (r), a development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (c) and is not subject to a conditional use permit or any other nonlegislative discretionary approval if the development complies with subdivision (b) and satisfies all of the following objective planning standards:
(1) The development is a multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units. (2) The development and the site on which it is located satisfy all of the following:
(A) It is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or parcels wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this section, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined. (C) (i) A site that meets the requirements of clause (ii) and satisfies any of the following:
(I) The site is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development. (II) The site has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses.
(III) The site meets the requirements of Section 65852.24. 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 7/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (ii) At least two-thirds of the square footage of the development is designated for residential use. Additional density, floor area, and units, and any other concession, incentive, or waiver of development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law in Section 65915 shall be included in the square footage calculation. The square footage of the development shall not include underground space, such as basements or underground parking garages.
(3) (A) The development proponent has committed to record, prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction or covenant providing that any lower or moderate-income housing units required pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) shall remain available at affordable housing costs or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate income for no less than the following periods of time:
(i) Fifty-five years for units that are rented.
(ii) Forty-five years for units that are owned.
(B) The city or county shall require the recording of covenants or restrictions implementing this paragraph for each parcel or unit of real property included in the development. (4) The development satisfies clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) and satisfies subparagraph (B) below:
(A) (i) For a development located in a locality that is in its sixth or earlier housing element cycle, the development is located in either of the following:
(I) In a locality that the department has determined is subject to this clause on the basis that the number of units that have been issued building permits, as shown on the most recent production report received by the department, is less than the locality’s share of the regional housing needs, by income category, for that reporting period. A locality shall remain eligible under this subclause until the department’s determination for the next reporting period.
(II) In a locality that the department has determined is subject to this clause on the basis that the locality did not adopt a housing element that has been found in substantial compliance with housing element law (Article

10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3) by the department. A locality shall remain eligible under this subclause until such time as the locality adopts a housing element that has been found in substantial compliance with housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3) by the department.
(ii) For a development located in a locality that is in its seventh or later housing element cycle, is located in a locality that the department has determined is subject to this clause on the basis that the locality did not adopt a housing element that has been found in substantial compliance with housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3) by the department by the statutory deadline, or that the number of units that have been issued building permits, as shown on the most recent production report received by the department, is less than the locality’s share of the regional housing needs, by income category, for that reporting period. A locality shall remain eligible under this subparagraph until the department’s determination for the next reporting period.
(B) The development is subject to a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on one of the following:
(i) The locality did not adopt a housing element pursuant to Section 65588 that has been found in substantial compliance with the housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3) by the department, did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or that production report submitted to the department reflects that there were fewer units of above moderate-income housing issued building permits than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period. In addition, if the project contains more than 10 units of housing, the project does one of the following:
(I) For for-rent projects, the project dedicates a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of units, before calculating any density bonus, to housing affordable to households making at or below 50 percent of the area median income. However, if the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 10 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 50 percent of the area median income, that local ordinance applies.
(II) For for-sale projects, the project dedicates a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of units, before calculating any density bonus, to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area median income. However, if the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 10 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income, that local ordinance applies.
4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 8/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (III) (ia) If the project is located within the San Francisco Bay area, the project, in lieu of complying with subclause (I) or (II), may opt to abide by this subclause. Projects utilizing this subclause shall dedicate 20 percent of the total number of units, before calculating any density bonus, to housing affordable to households making below 100 percent of the area median income with the average income of the units at or below 80 percent of the area median income. However, a local ordinance adopted by the locality applies if it requires greater than 20 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making at or below 100 percent of the area median income, or requires that any of the units be dedicated at a level deeper than 100 percent. In order to comply with this subclause, the rent or sale price charged for units that are dedicated to housing affordable to households between 80 percent and 100 percent of the area median income shall not exceed 30 percent of the gross income of the household. (ib) For purposes of this subclause, “San Francisco Bay area” means the entire area within the territorial boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, and the City and County of San Francisco.
(ii) (I) The locality’s latest production report reflects that there were fewer units of housing issued building permits affordable to either very low income or low-income households by income category than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period, and one of the following conditions exist:
(ia) The project seeking approval dedicates 20 percent of the total number of units, before calculating any density bonus, to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area median income.
(ib) The project application was submitted prior to January 1, 2019, and the project includes at least 500 units of housing, the project seeking approval or seeking a modification to a prior approval dedicates 20 percent of the total number of units, before calculating any density bonus, as affordable units, with at least 9 percent affordable to households making at or below 50 percent of the area median income and the remainder affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area median income. (II) Notwithstanding the conditions described in sub-subclauses (ia) and (ib) of subclause (I), if the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 20 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area median income, that local ordinance applies.
(III) For purposes of this clause, the reference to units affordable to very low income households includes units affordable to acutely low income households, as defined in Section 50063.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and to extremely low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. (iii) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or if the production report reflects that there were fewer units of housing affordable to both income levels described in clauses (i) and (ii) that were issued building permits than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period, the project seeking approval may choose between utilizing clause (i) or (ii).
(C) (i) A development proponent that uses a unit of affordable housing to satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B) may also satisfy any other local or state requirement for affordable housing, including local ordinances or the Density Bonus Law in Section 65915, provided that the development proponent complies with the applicable requirements in the state or local law. If a local requirement for affordable housing requires units that are restricted to households with incomes higher than the applicable income limits required in subparagraph (B), then units that meet the applicable income limits required in subparagraph (B) shall be deemed to satisfy those local requirements for higher income units.
(ii) A development proponent that uses a unit of affordable housing to satisfy any other state or local affordability requirement may also satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B), provided that the development proponent complies with applicable requirements of subparagraph (B). (iii) A development proponent may satisfy the affordability requirements of subparagraph (B) with a unit that is restricted to households with incomes lower than the applicable income limits required in subparagraph (B). (D) The amendments to this subdivision made by the act adding this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.
(5) The development, excluding any additional density or any other concessions, incentives, or waivers of development standards for which the development is eligible pursuant to the Density Bonus Law in Section 65915, is consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time that the development is submitted to the local government pursuant to this section, or at the time a notice of intent is 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 9/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) submitted pursuant to subdivision (b), whichever occurs earlier. For purposes of this paragraph, “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a city or county, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances, subject to the following:
(A) A development shall be deemed consistent with the objective zoning standards related to housing density, as applicable, if the density proposed is compliant with the maximum density allowed within that land use designation, notwithstanding any specified maximum unit allocation that may result in fewer units of housing being permitted. (B) In the event that objective zoning, general plan, subdivision, or design review standards are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the objective zoning and subdivision standards pursuant to this subdivision if the development is consistent with the standards set forth in the general plan. (C) It is the intent of the Legislature that the objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards described in this paragraph be adopted or amended in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.
(D) The amendments to this subdivision made by the act adding this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.
(E) A project that satisfies the requirements of Section 65852.24 shall be deemed consistent with objective zoning standards, objective design standards, and objective subdivision standards if the project is consistent with the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 65852.24 and if none of the square footage in the project is designated for hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging use, except for a residential hotel. For purposes of this subdivision, “residential hotel” shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
(6) The development is not located within any of the following:
(A) (i) An area of the coastal zone subject to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code.
(ii) An area of the coastal zone that is not subject to a certified local coastal program or a certified land use plan. (iii) An area of the coastal zone that is vulnerable to five feet of sea level rise, as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Ocean Protection Council, the United States Geological Survey, the University of California, or a local government’s coastal hazards vulnerability assessment. (iv) In a parcel within the coastal zone that is not zoned for multifamily housing. (v) In a parcel in the coastal zone and located on either of the following:
(I) A 100-foot radius of, or on, a wetland, as defined in Section 30121 of the Public Resources Code. (II) Prime agricultural land, as defined in Sections 30113 and 30241 of the Public Resources Code. (B) Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction.
(C) Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993). (D) A very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within the state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code.

This subparagraph does not apply to sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including, but not limited to, standards established under all of the following or their successor provisions:
(i) Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code or Section 51182, as applicable. (ii) Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code.
(iii) Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 10/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (E) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless either of the following apply:
(i) The site is an underground storage tank site that received a uniform closure letter issued pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code based on closure criteria established by the State Water Resources Control Board for residential use or residential mixed uses. This section does not alter or change the conditions to remove a site from the list of hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Section 65962.5. (ii) The State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or a local agency making a determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code, has otherwise determined that the site is suitable for residential use or residential mixed uses.
(F) A delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2. (G) A special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site. A development may be located on a site described in this subparagraph if either of the following are met:
(i) The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local jurisdiction.
(ii) The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section

59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(H) A regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a no-rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site. (I) Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan. (J) Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.

Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).
(K) Lands under conservation easement.
(7) (A) The development is not located on a site where any of the following apply:
(i) The development would require the demolition of the following types of housing:
(I) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate income, as defined in subdivision (m) of Section 65582, or lower income, as defined in subdivision (l) of Section 65582.
(II) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 11/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (III) Housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past 10 years. (ii) The site was previously used for housing that was occupied by tenants that was demolished within 10 years before the development proponent submits an application under this section. (iii) The development would require the demolition of a property individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources or of a contributing structure located within a historic district included on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.
(iv) The property contains housing units that are occupied by tenants, and units at the property are, or were, subsequently offered for sale to the general public by the subdivider or subsequent owner of the property. (B) This paragraph shall not apply if a structure on the development site that includes at least one housing unit was involuntarily damaged or destroyed by an earthquake, other catastrophic event, or the public enemy. (8) Except as provided in paragraph (9), a proponent of a development project approved by a local government pursuant to this section shall require in contracts with construction contractors, and shall certify to the local government, that the following standards specified in this paragraph will be met in project construction, as applicable:
(A) A development that is not in its entirety a public work for purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code and approved by a local government pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 65912.110) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 65912.120) shall be subject to all of the following:
(i) All construction workers employed in the execution of the development shall be paid at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the Labor Code, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate.
(ii) The development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance of the work, and shall also provide notice of all contracts for the performance of the work to the Department of Industrial Relations, in accordance with Section 1773.35 of the Labor Code, for those portions of the development that are not a public work.
(iii) All contractors and subcontractors for those portions of the development that are not a public work shall comply with all of the following:
(I) Pay to all construction workers employed in the execution of the work at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. (II) Maintain and verify payroll records pursuant to Section 1776 of the Labor Code and make those records available for inspection and copying as provided in that section. This subclause does not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of the development and provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure. For purposes of this subclause, “project labor agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code.
(III) Be registered in accordance with Section 1725.6 of the Labor Code. (B) (i) The obligation of the contractors and subcontractors to pay prevailing wages pursuant to this paragraph may be enforced by any of the following:
(I) The Labor Commissioner through the issuance of a civil wage and penalty assessment pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor Code, which may be reviewed pursuant to Section 1742 of the Labor Code, within 18 months after the completion of the development.
(II) An underpaid worker through an administrative complaint or civil action. (III) A joint labor-management committee through a civil action under Section 1771.2 of the Labor Code. (ii) If a civil wage and penalty assessment is issued pursuant to this paragraph, the contractor, subcontractor, and surety on a bond or bonds issued to secure the payment of wages covered by the assessment shall be liable for liquidated damages pursuant to Section 1742.1 of the Labor Code. 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 12/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (iii) This paragraph does not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of the development and provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure. For purposes of this clause, “project labor agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code. (C) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 1773.1 of the Labor Code, the requirement that employer payments not reduce the obligation to pay the hourly straight time or overtime wages found to be prevailing does not apply to those portions of a development that are not a public work if otherwise provided in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement covering the worker.
(D) The requirement of this paragraph to pay at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages does not preclude use of an alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511 or 514 of the Labor Code. (E) A development of 50 or more housing units approved by a local government pursuant to this section shall meet all of the following labor standards:
(i) The development proponent shall require in contracts with construction contractors and shall certify to the local government that each contractor of any tier who will employ construction craft employees or will let subcontracts for at least 1,000 hours shall satisfy the requirements in clauses (ii) and (iii). A construction contractor is deemed in compliance with clauses (ii) and (iii) if it is signatory to a valid collective bargaining agreement that requires utilization of registered apprentices and expenditures on health care for employees and dependents.
(ii) A contractor with construction craft employees shall either participate in an apprenticeship program approved by the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards pursuant to Section 3075 of the Labor Code, or request the dispatch of apprentices from a state-approved apprenticeship program under the terms and conditions set forth in Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code. A contractor without construction craft employees shall show a contractual obligation that its subcontractors comply with this clause. (iii) Each contractor with construction craft employees shall make health care expenditures for each employee in an amount per hour worked on the development equivalent to at least the hourly pro rata cost of a Covered California Platinum level plan for two adults 40 years of age and two dependents 0 to 14 years of age for the Covered California rating area in which the development is located. A contractor without construction craft employees shall show a contractual obligation that its subcontractors comply with this clause. Qualifying expenditures shall be credited toward compliance with prevailing wage payment requirements set forth in this paragraph.
(iv) (I) The development proponent shall provide to the local government, on a monthly basis while its construction contracts on the development are being performed, a report demonstrating compliance with clauses (ii) and (iii). The reports shall be considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1) and shall be open to public inspection. (II) A development proponent that fails to provide the monthly report shall be subject to a civil penalty for each month for which the report has not been provided, in the amount of 10 percent of the dollar value of construction work performed by that contractor on the development in the month in question, up to a maximum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Any contractor or subcontractor that fails to comply with clauses (ii) and (iii) shall be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each worker employed in contravention of clauses (ii) and (iii).
(III) Penalties may be assessed by the Labor Commissioner within 18 months of completion of the development using the procedures for issuance of civil wage and penalty assessments specified in Section 1741 of the Labor Code, and may be reviewed pursuant to Section 1742 of the Labor Code. Penalties shall be deposited in the State Public Works Enforcement Fund established pursuant to Section 1771.3 of the Labor Code.
(v) Each construction contractor shall maintain and verify payroll records pursuant to Section 1776 of the Labor Code. Each construction contractor shall submit payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner at least monthly in a format prescribed by the Labor Commissioner in accordance with subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 1771.4 of the Labor Code. The records shall include a statement of fringe benefits.

Upon request by a joint labor-management cooperation committee established pursuant to the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a), the records shall be provided pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1776 of the Labor Code.
(vi) All construction contractors shall report any change in apprenticeship program participation or health care expenditures to the local government within 10 business days, and shall reflect those changes on the monthly 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 13/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) report. The reports shall be considered public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1) and shall be open to public inspection. (vii) A joint labor-management cooperation committee established pursuant to the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a) shall have standing to sue a construction contractor for failure to make health care expenditures pursuant to clause (iii) in accordance with Section 218.7 or 218.8 of the Labor Code.
(F) For any project over 85 feet in height above grade, the following skilled and trained workforce provisions apply:
(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the developer shall enter into construction contracts with prime contractors only if all of the following are satisfied:
(I) The contract contains an enforceable commitment that the prime contractor and subcontractors at every tier will use a skilled and trained workforce, as defined in Section 2601 of the Public Contract Code, to perform work on the project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades.

However, this enforceable commitment requirement shall not apply to any scopes of work where new bids are accepted pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (ii).
(II) The developer or prime contractor shall establish minimum bidding requirements for subcontractors that are objective to the maximum extent possible. The developer or prime contractor shall not impose any obstacles in the bid process for subcontractors that go beyond what is reasonable and commercially customary. The developer or prime contractor must accept bids submitted by any bidder that meets the minimum criteria set forth in the bid solicitation.
(III) The prime contractor has provided an affidavit under penalty of perjury that, in compliance with this subparagraph, it will use a skilled and trained workforce and will obtain from its subcontractors an enforceable commitment to use a skilled and trained workforce for each scope of work in which it receives at least three bids attesting to satisfaction of the skilled and trained workforce requirements. (IV) When a prime contractor or subcontractor is required to provide an enforceable commitment that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete a contract or project, the commitment shall be made in an enforceable agreement with the developer that provides the following:
(ia) The prime contractor and subcontractors at every tier will comply with this chapter. (ib) The prime contractor will provide the developer, on a monthly basis while the project or contract is being performed, a report demonstrating compliance by the prime contractor. (ic) The prime contractor shall provide the developer, on a monthly basis while the project or contract is being performed, the monthly reports demonstrating compliance submitted to the prime contractor by the affected subcontractors.
(ii) (I) If a prime contractor fails to receive at least three bids in a scope of construction work from subcontractors that attest to satisfying the skilled and trained workforce requirements as described in this subparagraph, the prime contractor may accept new bids for that scope of work. The prime contractor need not require that a skilled and trained workforce be used by the subcontractors for that scope of work. (II) The requirements of this subparagraph shall not apply if all contractors, subcontractors, and craft unions performing work on the development are subject to a multicraft project labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of the development and provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure. The multicraft project labor agreement shall include all construction crafts with applicable coverage determinations for the specified scopes of work on the project pursuant to Section 1773 of the Labor Code and shall be executed by all applicable labor organizations regardless of affiliation. For purposes of this clause, “project labor agreement” means a prehire collective bargaining agreement that establishes terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project or projects and is an agreement described in Section 158(f) of Title 29 of the United States Code.
(III) Requirements set forth in this subparagraph shall not apply to projects where 100 percent of the units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(iii) If the skilled and trained workforce requirements of this subparagraph apply, the prime contractor shall require subcontractors to provide, and subcontractors on the project shall provide, the following to the prime contractor:
4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 14/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (I) An affidavit signed under penalty of perjury that a skilled and trained workforce shall be employed on the project.
(II) Reports on a monthly basis, while the project or contract is being performed, demonstrating compliance with this chapter.
(iv) Upon issuing any invitation or bid solicitation for the project, but no less than seven days before the bid is due, the developer shall send a notice of the invitation or solicitation that describes the project to the following entities within the jurisdiction of the proposed project site:
(I) Any bona fide labor organization representing workers in the building and construction trades who may perform work necessary to complete the project and the local building and construction trades council. (II) Any organization representing contractors that may perform work necessary to complete the project, including any contractors’ association or regional builders’ exchange. (v) The developer or prime contractor shall, within three business days of a request by a joint labor-management cooperation committee established pursuant to the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a), provide all of the following:
(I) The names and Contractors State License Board numbers of the prime contractor and any subcontractors that submitted a proposal or bid for the development project. (II) The names and Contractors State License Board numbers of contractors and subcontractors that are under contract to perform construction work.
(vi) (I) For all projects subject to this subparagraph, the development proponent shall provide to the locality, on a monthly basis while the project or contract is being performed, a report demonstrating that the self-performing prime contractor and all subcontractors used a skilled and trained workforce, as defined in Section 2601 of the Public Contract Code, unless otherwise exempt under this subparagraph. A monthly report provided to the locality pursuant to this subclause shall be a public record under the California Public Records Act Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 and shall be open to public inspection. A developer that fails to provide a complete monthly report shall be subject to a civil penalty of 10 percent of the dollar value of construction work performed by that contractor on the project in the month in question, up to a maximum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per month for each month for which the report has not been provided. (II) Any subcontractors or prime contractor self-performing work subject to the skilled and trained workforce requirements under this subparagraph that fail to use a skilled and trained workforce shall be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each worker employed in contravention of the skilled and trained workforce requirement. Penalties may be assessed by the Labor Commissioner within 18 months of completion of the project using the same issuance of civil wage and penalty assessments pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor Code and may be reviewed pursuant to the same procedures in Section 1742 of the Labor Code. Prime contractors shall not be jointly liable for violations of this subparagraph by subcontractors.

Penalties shall be paid to the State Public Works Enforcement Fund or the locality or its labor standards enforcement agency, depending on the lead entity performing the enforcement work. (III) Any provision of a contract or agreement of any kind between a developer and a prime contractor that purports to delegate, transfer, or assign to a prime contractor any obligations of or penalties incurred by a developer shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable. (G) A locality, and any labor standards enforcement agency the locality lawfully maintains, shall have standing to take administrative action or sue a construction contractor for failure to comply with this paragraph. A prevailing locality or labor standards enforcement agency shall distribute any wages and penalties to workers in accordance with law and retain any fees, additional penalties, or assessments. (9) Notwithstanding paragraph (8), a development that is subject to approval pursuant to this section is exempt from any requirement to pay prevailing wages, use a workforce participating in an apprenticeship, or provide health care expenditures if it satisfies both of the following:
(A) The project consists of 10 or fewer units.
(B) The project is not a public work for purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.
(10) The development shall not be upon an existing parcel of land or site that is governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law (Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Mobilehome Parks Act (Part 2.1 (commencing with Section 18200) of Division 13 of 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 15/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) the Health and Safety Code), or the Special Occupancy Parks Act (Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 18860) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code).
(b) (1) (A) (i) Before submitting an application for a development subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c), the development proponent shall submit to the local government a notice of its intent to submit an application. The notice of intent shall be in the form of a preliminary application that includes all of the information described in Section 65941.1, as that section read on January 1, 2020. (ii) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to submit an application described in clause (i), the local government shall engage in a scoping consultation regarding the proposed development with any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resources Code, of the proposed development. In order to expedite compliance with this subdivision, the local government shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission for assistance in identifying any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development.
(iii) The timeline for noticing and commencing a scoping consultation in accordance with this subdivision shall be as follows:
(I) The local government shall provide a formal notice of a development proponent’s notice of intent to submit an application described in clause (i) to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development within 30 days of receiving that notice of intent. The formal notice provided pursuant to this subclause shall include all of the following:
(ia) A description of the proposed development.
(ib) The location of the proposed development.
(ic) An invitation to engage in a scoping consultation in accordance with this subdivision. (II) Each California Native American tribe that receives a formal notice pursuant to this clause shall have 30 days from the receipt of that notice to accept the invitation to engage in a scoping consultation. (III) If the local government receives a response accepting an invitation to engage in a scoping consultation pursuant to this subdivision, the local government shall commence the scoping consultation within 30 days of receiving that response.
(B) The scoping consultation shall recognize that California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area have knowledge and expertise concerning the resources at issue and shall take into account the cultural significance of the resource to the culturally affiliated California Native American tribe. (C) The parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision shall be the local government and any California Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development. More than one California Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development may participate in the scoping consultation. However, the local government, upon the request of any California Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development, shall engage in a separate scoping consultation with that California Native American tribe. The development proponent and its consultants may participate in a scoping consultation process conducted pursuant to this subdivision if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The development proponent and its consultants agree to respect the principles set forth in this subdivision. (ii) The development proponent and its consultants engage in the scoping consultation in good faith. (iii) The California Native American tribe participating in the scoping consultation approves the participation of the development proponent and its consultants. The California Native American tribe may rescind its approval at any time during the scoping consultation, either for the duration of the scoping consultation or with respect to any particular meeting or discussion held as part of the scoping consultation. (D) The participants to a scoping consultation pursuant to this subdivision shall comply with all of the following confidentiality requirements:
(i) Section 7927.000.
(ii) Section 7927.005.
(iii) Subdivision (c) of Section 21082.3 of the Public Resources Code. (iv) Subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 16/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (v) Any additional confidentiality standards adopted by the California Native American tribe participating in the scoping consultation.
(E) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) shall not apply to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision. (2) (A) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties find that no potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by the proposed development, the development proponent may submit an application for the proposed development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c). (B) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties find that a potential tribal cultural resource could be affected by the proposed development and an enforceable agreement is documented between the California Native American tribe and the local government on methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource treatment, the development proponent may submit the application for a development subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c). The local government shall ensure that the enforceable agreement is included in the requirements and conditions for the proposed development. (C) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties find that a potential tribal cultural resource could be affected by the proposed development and an enforceable agreement is not documented between the California Native American tribe and the local government regarding methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource treatment, the development shall not be eligible for the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c).
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, a scoping consultation shall be deemed to be concluded if either of the following occur:
(i) The parties to the scoping consultation document an enforceable agreement concerning methods, measures, and conditions to avoid or address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that are or may be present. (ii) One or more parties to the scoping consultation, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, conclude that a mutual agreement on methods, measures, and conditions to avoid or address impacts to tribal cultural resources that are or may be present cannot be reached. (E) If the development or environmental setting substantially changes after the completion of the scoping consultation, the local government shall notify the California Native American tribe of the changes and engage in a subsequent scoping consultation if requested by the California Native American tribe. (3) A local government may only accept an application for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to this section if one of the following applies:
(A) A California Native American tribe that received a formal notice of the development proponent’s notice of intent to submit an application pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) did not accept the invitation to engage in a scoping consultation.
(B) The California Native American tribe accepted an invitation to engage in a scoping consultation pursuant to subclause (II) of clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) but substantially failed to engage in the scoping consultation after repeated documented attempts by the local government to engage the California Native American tribe.
(C) The parties to a scoping consultation pursuant to this subdivision find that no potential tribal cultural resource will be affected by the proposed development pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2). (D) A scoping consultation between a California Native American tribe and the local government has occurred in accordance with this subdivision and resulted in agreement pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). (4) A project shall not be eligible for the streamlined, ministerial process described in subdivision (c) if any of the following apply:
(A) There is a tribal cultural resource that is on a national, state, tribal, or local historic register list located on the site of the project.
(B) There is a potential tribal cultural resource that could be affected by the proposed development and the parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision do not document an enforceable agreement on methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource treatment, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2).
(C) The parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision do not agree as to whether a potential tribal cultural resource will be affected by the proposed development. 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 17/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (5) (A) If, after a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision, a project is not eligible for the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c) for any or all of the following reasons, the local government shall provide written documentation of that fact, and an explanation of the reason for which the project is not eligible, to the development proponent and to any California Native American tribe that is a party to that scoping consultation:
(i) There is a tribal cultural resource that is on a national, state, tribal, or local historic register list located on the site of the project, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (4). (ii) The parties to the scoping consultation have not documented an enforceable agreement on methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource treatment, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) and subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4).
(iii) The parties to the scoping consultation do not agree as to whether a potential tribal cultural resource will be affected by the proposed development, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4). (B) The written documentation provided to a development proponent pursuant to this paragraph shall include information on how the development proponent may seek a conditional use permit or other discretionary approval of the development from the local government.
(6) This section is not intended, and shall not be construed, to limit consultation and discussion between a local government and a California Native American tribe pursuant to other applicable law, confidentiality provisions under other applicable law, the protection of religious exercise to the fullest extent permitted under state and federal law, or the ability of a California Native American tribe to submit information to the local government or participate in any process of the local government.
(7) For purposes of this subdivision:
(A) “Consultation” means the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement.

Consultation between local governments and Native American tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s sovereignty. Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural importance. A lead agency shall consult the tribal consultation best practices described in the “State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to the General Plan Guidelines” prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. (B) “Scoping” means the act of participating in early discussions or investigations between the local government and California Native American tribe, and the development proponent if authorized by the California Native American tribe, regarding the potential effects a proposed development could have on a potential tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code, or California Native American tribe, as defined in Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code.
(8) This subdivision shall not apply to any project that has been approved under the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided under this section before the effective date of the act adding this subdivision. (c) (1) Notwithstanding any local law, if a local government’s planning director or equivalent position determines that a development submitted pursuant to this section is consistent with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) and pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subdivision, the local government shall approve the development.

Upon a determination that a development submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a), the local government staff or relevant local planning and permitting department that made the determination shall provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards, as follows:
(A) Within 60 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(B) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains more than 150 housing units.
(C) Within 30 days of submittal of any development proposal that was resubmitted to address written feedback provided by the local government pursuant to this paragraph. (2) If the local government’s planning director or equivalent position fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to paragraph (1), the development shall be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a).
4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 18/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (3) For purposes of this section, and except as provided in paragraph (4), a development is consistent with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. The local government shall not determine that a development, including an application for a modification under subdivision (h), is in conflict with the objective planning standards on the basis that application materials are not included, if the application contains substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective planning standards.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), in any evaluation of a development under this section related to compliance with paragraph (6) of subdivision (a), the local government shall bear the burden of proof. It shall demonstrate, with a preponderance of the evidence, that the development does not comply with applicable environmental criteria established under state or federal law. This demonstration shall include detailed written findings that specify the environmental criteria the project fails to meet and provide a clear linkage to the empirical or scientific evidence supporting these written findings.
(5) Upon submittal of an application for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to this section to the local government, all departments of the local government that are required to issue an approval of the development prior to the granting of an entitlement shall comply with the requirements of this section within the time periods specified in paragraph (1).
(d) (1) Any design review of the development may be conducted by the local government’s planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for design review. That design review shall be objective and be strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects, as well as any reasonable objective design standards published and adopted by ordinance or resolution by a local jurisdiction before submission of a development application, and shall be broadly applicable to development within the jurisdiction. That design review shall be completed, and if the development is consistent with all objective standards, the local government shall approve the development as follows and shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial approval provided by this section or its effect, as applicable:
(A) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(B) Within 180 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains more than 150 housing units.
(2) An application for a subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) shall be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) and shall be subject to the public oversight timelines set forth in paragraph (1) if the development is consistent with the requirements of this section, including, but not limited to, paragraph (8) of subdivision (a), and all objective subdivision standards in the local subdivision ordinance, and meets at least one of the following requirements:
(A) The development has received or will receive financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit. (B) The development is located on a legal parcel or parcels within either of the following:
(i) An incorporated city, the boundaries of which include some portion of an urbanized area. (ii) An urbanized area or urban cluster in a county with a population greater than 250,000 based on the most recent United States Census Bureau data.
(iii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the following definitions apply:
(I) “Urbanized area” means an urbanized area designated by the United States Census Bureau, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 77, Number 59, on March 27, 2012. (II) “Urban cluster” means an urban cluster designated by the United States Census Bureau, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 77, Number 59, on March 27, 2012. (3) If a local government determines that a development submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with any of the standards imposed pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall provide the development proponent written documentation of which objective standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that objective standard or standards consistent with the timelines described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).
(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a local government, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing automobile parking requirements in multifamily developments, shall not impose automobile parking standards for a streamlined development that was approved pursuant to this section in any of the following instances:
4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 19/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1428 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (A) The development is located within one-half mile of public transit. (B) The development is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (C) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the development. (D) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the development. (2) If the development does not fall within any of the categories described in paragraph (1), the local government shall not impose automobile parking requirements for streamlined developments approved pursuant to this section that exceed one parking space per unit.
(f) Notwithstanding any law, a local government shall not require any of the following prior to approving a development that meets the requirements of this section:
(1) Studies, information, or other materials that do not pertain directly to determining whether the development is consistent with the objective planning standards applicable to the development. (2) (A) Compliance with any standards necessary to receive a postentitlement permit. (B) This paragraph does not prohibit a local agency from requiring compliance with any standards necessary to receive a postentitlement permit after a permit has been issued pursuant to this section. (C) For purposes of this paragraph, “postentitlement permit” has the same meaning as provided in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (j) of Section 65913.3. (g) (1) If a local government approves a development pursuant to this section, then, notwithstanding any other law, that approval shall not expire if the project satisfies both of the following requirements:
(A) The project includes public investment in housing affordability, beyond tax credits. (B) At least 50 percent of the units are affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area median income.
(2) (A) If a local government approves a development pursuant to this section, and the project does not satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), that approval shall remain valid for three years from the date of the final action establishing that approval, or if litigation is filed challenging that approval, from the date of the final judgment upholding that approval. Approval shall remain valid for a project provided construction activity, including demolition and grading activity, on the development site that has begun pursuant to a permit issued by the local jurisdiction and is in progress. For purposes of this subdivision, “in progress” means one of the following:
(i) The construction has begun and has not ceased for more than 180 days. (ii) If the development requires multiple building permits, an initial phase has been completed, and the project proponent has applied for and is diligently pursuing a building permit for a subsequent phase, provided that once it has been issued, the building permit for the subsequent phase does not lapse. (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local government may grant a project a one-time, one-year extension if the project proponent can provide documentation that there has been significant progress toward getting the development construction ready, such as filing a building permit application. (3) If the development proponent requests a modification pursuant to subdivision (h), then the time during which the approval shall remain valid shall be extended for the number of days between the submittal of a modification request and the date of its final approval, plus an additional 180 days to allow time to obtain a building permit. If litigation is filed relating to the modification request, the time shall be further extended during the pendency of the litigation. The extension required by this paragraph shall only apply to the first request for a modification submitted by the development proponent.
(4) The amendments made to this subdivision by the act that added this paragraph shall also be retroactively applied to developments approved prior to January 1, 2022.
(h) (1) (A) A development proponent may request a modification to a development that has been approved under the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided in subdivision (c) if that request is submitted to the local government before the issuance of the final building permit required for construction of the development. (B) Except as provided in paragraph (3), the local government shall approve a modification if it determines that the modification is consistent with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) that were in effect when the original development application was first submitted. 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 20/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1429 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (C) The local government shall evaluate any modifications requested pursuant to this subdivision for consistency with the objective planning standards using the same assumptions and analytical methodology that the local government originally used to assess consistency for the development that was approved for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to subdivision (c).
(D) A guideline that was adopted or amended by the department pursuant to subdivision (n) after a development was approved through the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c) shall not be used as a basis to deny proposed modifications.
(2) Upon receipt of the development proponent’s application requesting a modification, the local government shall determine if the requested modification is consistent with the objective planning standard and either approve or deny the modification request within 60 days after submission of the modification, or within 90 days if design review is required.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the local government may apply objective planning standards adopted after the development application was first submitted to the requested modification in any of the following instances:
(A) The development is revised such that the total square footage of construction increases by 15 percent or more or the total number of residential units decreases by 15 percent or more. The calculation of the square footage of construction increases shall not include underground space. (B) The development is revised such that the total square footage of construction increases by 5 percent or more or the total number of residential units decreases by 5 percent or more and it is necessary to subject the development to an objective standard beyond those in effect when the development application was submitted in order to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact, as that term is defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 65589.5, upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. The calculation of the square footage of construction increases shall not include underground space.
(C) (i) Objective building standards contained in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), including, but not limited to, building plumbing, electrical, fire, and grading codes, may be applied to all modification applications that are submitted prior to the first building permit application. Those standards may be applied to modification applications submitted after the first building permit application if agreed to by the development proponent.
(ii) The amendments made to clause (i) by the act that added clause (i) shall also be retroactively applied to modification applications submitted prior to January 1, 2022. (4) The local government’s review of a modification request pursuant to this subdivision shall be strictly limited to determining whether the modification, including any modification to previously approved density bonus concessions or waivers, modify the development’s consistency with the objective planning standards and shall not reconsider prior determinations that are not affected by the modification. (i) (1) A local government shall not adopt or impose any requirement, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section. (2) (A) A local government shall issue a subsequent permit required for a development approved under this section if the application substantially complies with the development as it was approved pursuant to subdivision (c). Upon receipt of an application for a subsequent permit, the local government shall process the permit without unreasonable delay and shall not impose any procedure or requirement that is not imposed on projects that are not approved pursuant to this section. The local government shall consider the application for subsequent permits based upon the objective standards specified in any state or local laws that were in effect when the original development application was submitted, unless the development proponent agrees to a change in objective standards. Issuance of subsequent permits shall implement the approved development, and review of the permit application shall not inhibit, chill, or preclude the development. For purposes of this paragraph, a “subsequent permit” means a permit required subsequent to receiving approval under subdivision (c), and includes, but is not limited to, demolition, grading, encroachment, and building permits and final maps, if necessary.
(B) The amendments made to subparagraph (A) by the act that added this subparagraph shall also be retroactively applied to subsequent permit applications submitted prior to January 1, 2022. (3) (A) If a public improvement is necessary to implement a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, a bicycle lane, sidewalk or walkway, public transit stop, driveway, street paving or overlay, a curb or gutter, a modified intersection, a street sign or street light, landscape or hardscape, an above-ground or underground utility connection, a water line, fire hydrant, storm or sanitary sewer connection, retaining wall, and any related work, and that public improvement is located on land owned by the local 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 21/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1430 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) government, to the extent that the public improvement requires approval from the local government, the local government shall not exercise its discretion over any approval relating to the public improvement in a manner that would inhibit, chill, or preclude the development.
(B) If an application for a public improvement described in subparagraph (A) is submitted to a local government, the local government shall do all of the following:
(i) Consider the application based upon any objective standards specified in any state or local laws that were in effect when the original development application was submitted. (ii) Conduct its review and approval in the same manner as it would evaluate the public improvement if required by a project that is not eligible to receive ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section. (C) If an application for a public improvement described in subparagraph (A) is submitted to a local government, the local government shall not do either of the following:
(i) Adopt or impose any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section. (ii) Unreasonably delay in its consideration, review, or approval of the application. (j) (1) This section shall not affect a development proponent’s ability to use any alternative streamlined by right permit processing adopted by a local government, including the provisions of subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2. (2) This section shall not prevent a development from also qualifying as a housing development project entitled to the protections of Section 65589.5. This paragraph does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. (k) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) does not apply to actions taken by a state agency, local government, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to:
(1) Lease, convey, or encumber land owned by the local government or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land owned by the local government, or for the lease of land owned by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District in association with an eligible TOD project, as defined pursuant to Section 29010.1 of the Public Utilities Code, nor to any decisions associated with that lease, or to provide financial assistance to a development that receives streamlined approval pursuant to this section that is to be used for housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) Approve improvements located on land owned by the local government or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District that are necessary to implement a development that receives streamlined approval pursuant to this section that is to be used for housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(l) For purposes of establishing the total number of units in a development under this chapter, a development or development project includes both of the following:
(1) All projects developed on a site, regardless of when those developments occur. (2) All projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed pursuant to this chapter if, after January 1, 2023, the adjacent site had been subdivided from the site developed pursuant to this chapter. (m) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “Affordable housing cost” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) (A) Subject to the qualification provided by subparagraphs (B) and (C), “affordable rent” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. (B) For a development for which an application pursuant to this section was submitted prior to January 1, 2019, that includes 500 units or more of housing, and that dedicates 20 percent of the total number of units, before calculating any density bonus, to housing affordable to households making at, or below, 80 percent of the area median income, affordable rent for at least 30 percent of these units shall be set at an affordable rent as defined in subparagraph (A) and “affordable rent” for the remainder of these units shall mean a rent that is consistent with the maximum rent levels for a housing development that receives an allocation of state or federal low-income housing tax credits from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.
(C) For a development that dedicates 100 percent of units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, to lower income households, “affordable rent” shall mean a rent that is consistent with the maximum rent levels stipulated by the 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 22/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1431 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) public program providing financing for the development. (3) “Department” means the Department of Housing and Community Development. (4) “Development proponent” means the developer who submits a housing development project application to a local government under the streamlined ministerial review process pursuant to this section. (5) “Completed entitlements” means a housing development that has received all the required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. (6) “Health care expenditures” include contributions under Section 401(a), 501(c), or 501(d) of the Internal Revenue Code and payments toward “medical care,” as defined in Section 213(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. (7) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as in Section 65589.5. (8) “Locality” or “local government” means a city, including a charter city, a county, including a charter county, or a city and county, including a charter city and county.
(9) “Moderate-income housing units” means housing units with an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for persons and families of moderate income, as that term is defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (10) “Production report” means the information reported pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400.
(11) “State agency” includes every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission, but does not include the California State University or the University of California. (12) (A) “Reporting period” means any of the following:
(i) The first quarter of the regional housing needs assessment cycle. (ii) The second quarter of the regional housing needs assessment cycle. (iii) The third quarter of the regional housing needs assessment cycle. (iv) The last quarter of the regional housing needs assessment cycle. (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), “reporting period” means annually for the City and County of San Francisco. (13) “Urban uses” means any current or former residential, commercial, public institutional, public park that is surrounded by other urban uses, parking lot or structure, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.
(n) The department may review, adopt, amend, and repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in this section. Any guidelines or terms adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall not be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(o) The determination of whether an application for a development is subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (c) is not a “project” as defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code. (p) Notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of this section and for development in compliance with the requirements of this section on property owned by or leased to the state, the Department of General Services may act in the place of a locality or local government, at the discretion of the department. (q) (1) For developments proposed in a census tract that is designated either as a moderate resource area, low resource area, or an area of high segregation and poverty on the most recent “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development, within 45 days after receiving a notice of intent, as described in subdivision (b), and before the development proponent submits an application for the proposed development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c), the local government shall provide for a public meeting to be held by the city council or county board of supervisors to provide an opportunity for the public and the local government to comment on the development. (2) The public meeting shall be held at a regular meeting and be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5). (3) If the development proposal is located within a city with a population of greater than 250,000 or the unincorporated area of a county with a population of greater than 250,000, the public meeting shall be held by the jurisdiction’s planning commission.
4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 23/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (4) Comments may be provided by testimony during the meeting or in writing at any time before the meeting concludes.
(5) The development proponent shall attest in writing that it attended the meeting described in paragraph (1) and reviewed the public testimony and written comments from the meeting in its application for the proposed development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c). (6) If the local government fails to hold the hearing described in paragraph (1) within 45 days after receiving the notice of intent, the development proponent shall hold a public meeting on the proposed development before submitting an application pursuant to this section.
(r) (1) This section shall not apply to applications for developments proposed on qualified sites that are submitted on or after January 1, 2024, but before July 1, 2025.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “qualified site” means a site that meets the following requirements:
(A) The site is located within an equine or equestrian district designated by a general plan or specific or master plan, which may include a specific narrative reference to a geographically determined area or map of the same. Parcels adjoined and only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be within an equestrian district. (B) As of January 1, 2024, the general plan applicable to the site contains, and has contained for five or more years, an equine or equestrian district designation where the site is located. (C) As of January 1, 2024, the equine or equestrian district applicable to the site is not zoned to include residential uses, but authorizes residential uses with a conditional use permit. (D) The applicable local government has an adopted housing element that is compliant with applicable law. (3) The Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of this subdivision is to allow local governments to conduct general plan updates to align their general plan with applicable zoning changes. (s) The provisions of clause (iii) of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) relating to health care expenditures are distinct and severable from the remaining provisions of this section. However, the remaining portions of paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) are a material and integral part of this section and are not severable. If any provision or application of paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) is held invalid, this entire section shall be null and void. (t) (1) The changes made to this section by the act adding this subdivision shall apply in a coastal zone, as defined in Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code, on and after January 1, 2025. (2) In an area of the coastal zone not excluded under paragraph (6) of subdivision (a), a development that satisfies the requirements of subdivision (a) shall require a coastal development permit pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 30600) of Division 20 of the Public Resources Code. A public agency with coastal development permitting authority shall approve a coastal development permit if it determines that the development is consistent with all objective standards of the local government’s certified local coastal program or, for areas that are not subject to a fully certified local coastal program, the certified land use plan of that area. (3) For purposes of this section, receipt of any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which the applicant is entitled under Section 65915 shall not constitute a basis to find the project inconsistent with the local coastal program. (u) It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, increased housing supply. (v) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2036, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 4. Section 66411.7 of the Government Code is amended to read:
66411.7. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division and any local law, a local agency shall ministerially approve, as set forth in this section, a parcel map for an urban lot split only if the local agency determines that the parcel map for the urban lot split meets all the following requirements:
(1) The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels. (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), both newly created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet. (B) A local agency may by ordinance adopt a smaller minimum lot size subject to ministerial approval under this subdivision.
(3) Newly created lots subdivided pursuant to this section are not required to comply with any of the following requirements:
4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 24/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1433 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (A) A minimum or maximum requirement on the size, width, depth, frontage, or dimensions of any individual parcel beyond the minimum parcel size specified in, or established pursuant to, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of this section.
(B) The formation of an association.
(C) A deed restriction or covenant that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate income, as defined in subdivision (m) of Section 65582, or lower income, as defined in subdivision (l) of Section 65582.
(4) The parcel being subdivided meets all the following requirements:
(A) The parcel is located within a residential zone.
(B) The parcel subject to the proposed urban lot split is located within a city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(C) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.
(D) (i) The proposed urban lot split would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
(I) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate income, as defined in subdivision (m) of Section 65582, or lower income, as defined in subdivision (l) of Section 65582.
(II) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
(III) A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application. (IV) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (ii) This subparagraph shall not apply if a structure on the development site that includes at least one housing unit was involuntarily damaged or destroyed by an earthquake, catastrophic event, or the public enemy. (E) The parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance. (F) The parcel has not been established through prior exercise of an urban lot split as provided for in this section. (b) An application for a parcel map for an urban lot split shall be approved in accordance with the following requirements:
(1) (A) A local agency shall approve or deny an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split ministerially without discretionary review.
(B) An application for an urban lot split shall be considered and approved or denied within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application. If the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. (C) If a permitting agency denies an application for an urban lot split pursuant to subparagraph (B), the permitting agency shall, within the time period described in subparagraph (B), return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.
(D) Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of a local agency concerning an urban lot split, or of any proceeding, act, or determination taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality, or validity of any condition attached to the decision, including, but not limited to, the approval of the urban lot split, shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced and service of summons effected in accordance with Section 66499.37. This subparagraph is declaratory of existing law.
(2) A local agency shall approve an urban lot split only if it conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)), except as otherwise expressly provided in this 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 25/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) section.
(3) Notwithstanding Section 66411.1, a local agency shall not impose regulations that require dedications of rights-ofway or the construction of offsite improvements for the parcels being created as a condition of issuing a parcel map for an urban lot split pursuant to this section.
(c) (1) Except as provided in this subdivision, notwithstanding any local law, a local agency may impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that are related to the design or to improvements of a parcel, consistent with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) and with subdivision (e), and are applicable to a parcel created by an urban lot split that do not conflict with this section. (2) A local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, objective design review standards, or permitting requirements that would have the effect of physically precluding an urban lot split from occurring or the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 1,750 net habitable square feet.
(3) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), no setback height limitation, lot coverage limitation, floor area ratio, or other standard that shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and within the dimensions as an existing structure.
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), in all other circumstances not described in subparagraph (A), a local agency may require a setback from the original lot line of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines. (4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency may only impose a front setback with respect to the original lot line. (5) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency shall not require a setback between the units, except as required in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). (6) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency shall not impose a driveway width requirement that exceeds a driveway width requirement applied uniformly to development within the underlying zone. If the underlying zone does not have a driveway width requirement, the local agency shall not impose a driveway width greater than 10 feet if serving one lot, or 14 feet if serving multiple lots. A driveway constructed pursuant to this paragraph shall be considered sufficient to provide access to multiple units either on a single lot, or multiple units that share an access easement.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny an urban lot split if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. (e) A local agency may require any of the following conditions when considering an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split:
(1) Easements required for the provision of public services and facilities. (2) A requirement that the parcels have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way. This paragraph should not be interpreted as to allow a local agency to impose an access method if it would physically preclude the lot split from occurring while the use of another method would facilitate the lot split. (3) Offstreet parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in any of the following instances:
(A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
(B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. (f) A local agency shall require that the uses allowed on a lot created by this section be limited to residential uses. (g) A local agency shall not use or impose any additional standards, other than those provided in this section, including any owner-occupant requirement.
(h) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.
(i) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a parcel map application for the creation of an urban lot split, the correction of nonconforming zoning or subdivision conditions. 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 26/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1435 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (j) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 65852.21, 65915, Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1, or this section, a local agency shall not be required to permit more than two units on a parcel created through the exercise of the authority contained within this section. (2) For the purposes of this section, “unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a unit or units created pursuant to Section 65852.21, a primary dwelling, an accessory dwelling unit as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 66313, or a junior accessory dwelling unit as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 66313. (k) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance.
(l) Local agencies shall include the number of applications for parcel maps for urban lot splits pursuant to this section in the annual housing element report as required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400. (m) For purposes of this section, all of the following shall apply:
(1) “Objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a local agency, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances. (2) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. (3) “Association” has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code. (4) “Urbanized area” means an urbanized area designated by the United States Census Bureau, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 77, Number 59, on March 27, 2012. (5) “Urban cluster” means an urbanized area designated by the United States Census Bureau, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 77, Number 59, on March 27, 2012. (6) “Net habitable square feet” means the finished and heated floor area fully enclosed by the inside surface of walls, windows, doors, and partitions, and having a headroom of at least six and one-half feet, including working, living, eating, cooking, sleeping, stair, hall, service, and storage areas, but excluding garages, carports, parking spaces, cellars, half-stories, and unfinished attics and basements. (n) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(o) (1) A local agency shall submit a copy of the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to the department within 60 days after adoption. After adoption of an ordinance, the department may submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with this section. The local agency shall submit a copy of any existing ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to the department within 60 days of the date this act becomes effective. (2) (A) If the department finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall notify the local agency and shall provide the local agency with a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to the findings before taking any other action authorized by this section. (B) The local agency shall consider any findings made by the department pursuant to paragraph (1) and shall do one of the following:
(i) Amend the ordinance to comply with this section.
(ii) Adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite the findings of the department.
(3) If the local agency does not amend its ordinance in response to the department’s findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with this section and addressing the department’s findings, the department shall notify the local agency and may notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law.
(p) A local agency shall ministerially review a condominium map to subdivide a housing development built pursuant to Section 65852.21, consistent with the standards set out for an urban lot split in this section. 4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 27/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) (q) A local agency shall provide applicants with a single application for an urban lot split pursuant to this section and any housing development pursuant to Section 65852.21. Both applications shall be reviewed concurrently. (r) For a project located in the coastal zone, as specified in the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), this section does not relieve a project relying on the provisions of this section from the requirement to obtain a coastal development permit as required by Section 30600 of the Public Resources Code. Any standards to which the applicant is entitled under this section shall be permitted in a manner that is consistent with this section and does not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and public coastal access pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of Division 20 of the Public Resources Code. (s) (1) A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon an urban lot split proposed pursuant to this section.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “impact fee” has the same meaning as the term “fee” is defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66000, except that it also includes fees specified in Section 66477. “Impact fee” does not include any connection fee or capacity charge charged by a local agency, special district, or water corporation.

SEC. 5.Section 30500.1 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:
30500.1.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature that this division and Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 of the Government Code be harmonized so as to achieve the goal of increasing the supply of housing in the coastal zone while also protecting coastal resources and public coastal access. (b)On or by July 1, 2026, any local government in the coastal zone that has not done so already shall submit to the commission for certification an amendment to the local government’s local coastal program that harmonizes the applicable provisions of Section 65852.21 and Section 66411.7 of the Government Code and this division. (c)If a local government submits to the commission for certification an amendment to the local government’s local coastal program that would add a provision stating that any housing development pursuant to Section 65852.21 of the Government Code or an urban lot split pursuant to Section 66411.7 of the Government Code to which the applicant is entitled under this section shall be permitted in a manner that is consistent with the policies of the local coastal program to the greatest extent feasible, does not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and public coastal access, and would make no other changes to the local coastal program, the amendment shall be processed as de minimis pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 30514.

SEC. 6.SEC. 5. The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 and 4 of this act amending Sections 65852.21, 65913.4, and 66411.7 of the Government Code and Section 30500.1 of the Public Resources Code address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 and 4 of this act apply to all cities, including charter cities.

SEC. 7.SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
4/3/25, 3:05 PM Bill Text - SB-677 Housing development: streamlined approvals. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB677 28/28

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: SB 677 (7032 : Support SB 677) 1 Clerk Mailbox
From: Dan Philibin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:00 AM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Agenda Item 16E & 16F: Support for SB 79 and SB 677

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
As a Santa Monica resident, I urge you to support agenda items 16E and 16F for SB 79 and SB 677.

If the council genuinely wants to be pro-housing, supporting these measures is imperative. I urge you to vote in favor of these bills.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Dan Philibin
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 1 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 12:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Items 16-E & 16-F: Oppose SB 79 and SB 677!

Santa Monica, like many California cities, needs affordable housing.

William and Mary Lou Schoene
1519 Oak Street Santa Monica 90405
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 1 Clerk Mailbox
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; PNA SM Cc: Brian O'Neil; Tony Huizar; Marisela Herrera; Berenice Onofre; Gina DeBaca Subject: Council agenda item 16E & 16F

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Armine Chaparyan; Douglas Sloan
Subject: Agenda Items 16.E. and 16.F. (April 8, 2025)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please reject Zwick’s request to take a “support” position on SB 79 and SB 677.

An abundance of newly constructed housing is and will not provide the low income and worker housing needed.

Instead the over abundance of high priced units is making a highly desirable location such as Santa Monica, a more expensive place to live.

Please say NO to SB 79 and SB 677!
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
resident since the early 1980’s
(and fan of Santa Monica since well before)
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE:4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE!
The FOSP Board opposes Councilmember Zwick’s request that the City Council approve the City taking a “Support” position on both SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener).

These are extremely radical bills that would fundamentally and forever change all of Santa Monica. We encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these bills instead.

None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. There are no affordability requirements for any of this. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.

From: Oak OConnor
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please do not alter Zoning
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:23:42 AM

EXTERNAL
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:26 AM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Friends of Sunset Park; councilmtgitems
Subject: 4/8/25 agenda item 16-F – Please Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro tem Torosis, and Council members, I'm deeply concerned about the proposed resolution to preemptively support SB677. Please oppose 16-F on today's agenda.

SB 677 -- Senate Bill 677 would, among other things, lift the owner occupancy requirement for residential lot splits statewide. This will not add affordable housing of any kind, and would drastically change many of our Santa Monica neighborhoods as developers will have carte blanche to buy property with all cash (pricing out normal homebuyers), tear down old homes, split the land, build an already legal (stunningly so!) 4 units on each, for a total of 8 (market rate) units on previously single family home parcels.

This legislation won’t improve housing affordability—it will only benefit developers:

SB9's lot split provision was designed to support multi-generational family living and help homeowners maximize their property value. The owner occupancy requirement in SB9 and SB450 was specifically included to prevent developer exploitation.

Without this requirement, developers with all-cash offers will outbid regular homebuyers, split lots, and build dense luxury housing that maximizes their profit. With no affordability requirements, nothing under market rate will be built, resulting in zero truly affordable new homes.

Furthermore, this will drive up land costs as developers compete for these profitable opportunities, making housing even more expensive for everyone, especially families seeking single-family homes.

Our most diverse and currently affordable neighborhoods will be the first ones to be affected by this law. We will likely see displacement of longtime residents who will become targets for developers who want to tear down properties and put up luxury apartments. This could facilitate the exodus of people who have lived here for generations, in favor of wealthy renters who can flit in and out of the city.

We are told that building more will reduce prices based on supply and demand. But this oversimplified economic view ignores that demand for living in Santa Monica is essentially unlimited. When demand is inelastic, as it is here, increasing luxury supply doesn't lower overall prices. A recent study from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco confirms this economic view. Supply is not the key factor in determining housing prices… the wealth and income of residents is. https://www.frbsf.org/wpcontent/uploads/wp2025-06.pdf Legal reasons not to preemptively support SB677:

The fact that this legislation will destroy the fabric and character of our neighborhoods isn’t the only reason to reject it, there are also crucial legal reasons why council should not vote in favor of the resolution to support this legislation.

Voting on these items prematurely and preemptively is legally dangerous. There is a lawsuit against the city right now that hinges in part on these issues, and voting on these resolutions now could have profound implications for it, and tip scales of justice toward one ruling. That would possibly be grounds for yet another lawsuit against the city.

Given the city’s precarious financial position, we really can’t afford to make two totally unnecessary resolutions that could invite even more litigation against the city.

Thank you,
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Robert Jordan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment for Agenda item 16-F

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a proud resident of the Sunset Park Neighborhood and I am in support of agenda item 16-F. This will help the city build more affordable missing middle housing and help meet state housing goals easier. I live in an eight unit complex and the community it offers, while more affordable rent has helped me to live in the city I've fallen in love with.

Thanks,
Robert Jordan
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 4 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:55 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: In Support: Item 16.F

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a resident, renter, and voter, I support the City of Santa Monica backing Senate Bill 677. Streamlining housing production and closing loopholes exploited in bad faith against sorely needed housing are vital steps.

Thank you,
Jacob Wasserman
11th and Washington
90403
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Councilmailbox ; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Bcc: Zina Josephs Subject: City Council 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F

SB 79would legalize multi-family buildings within one-half mile of a high-quality public transit stop.

SB 677-- Senate Bill 677 makes various changes to SB 9 and SB 423. SB 9 requires ministerial approvals for duplexes and lot splits in single-family zoned districts statewide.

Sincerely,
-padpeter a donald
2618 32nd St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 871-4862
[email protected]
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 2 David Yakobson
From: A De La Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: Resident and opposition 16-E and 16-F – oppose. And getting rid Fairview

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 3 I oppose getting rid of Fairview Library!! This could be use for the community as sole childrens center for learning! More public learning opportunities for children of Santa Monica!!!! Analis De La Rosa R.N, BSN, PHN
Ph: (530) 391-6714
"Keep your face always toward the sunshineand the shadows will fall behind you"- Walt Whitman Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 4 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: support 16E and 16F 4/8/2025

EXTERNAL
I'm writing to support the city council voting yes on items 16E and 16F on tonight's agenda.

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 5 https://thearp.org/blog/apportionment/2030-apportionment-forecast-2024 Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 6 David Yakobson
From: Dan Cobbett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

Assuming that people who live a 1/2 mile from the Expo line are going to just not want a vehicle and be okay walking and taking public transpo everywhere is magical thinking.

Thanks for reading!
Dan Cobbett
Sunset Park, Santa Monica, CA
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 7 David Yakobson
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; PNA SM Cc: Brian O'Neil; Tony Huizar; Marisela Herrera; Berenice Onofre; Gina DeBaca Subject: Council agenda item 16E & 16F

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 8 David Yakobson
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Support Item 16 E & F

Thanks,
Sam Shapiro-Kline
90403
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 9 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Friendsofsunsetpark Info
Subject: City Council Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE (Preserve Local Control !!!)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council -
I am writing to oppose Items 16E and 16F. These are bad policy in general, but also destructive to Santa Monica specifically.

Here are some of the many reasons you should vote no.

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1454 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 10  No analysis has been conducted by either the county or city staff as to what the impact of these laws would actually be. How can you possibly support something with no analysis of the outcomes (which can't be known because the language isn't final)?  There is a public hearing in Santa Monica on related topics on April 22, so voting on this today effectively nullifies that public hearing. The residents of Santa Monica are legally entitled to a free, fair, and transparent public hearing on our zoning and LUCE designations. A vote on these 16 items will lock you into votes in that hearing before the public (your constituents!) have had a chance to speak.

Do better for Santa Monicans. Vote no on 16-E and 16-F.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1455 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 11 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: April 8, 2025 Agenda items 16-E and 16-F, oppose

EXTERNAL
Please do not agree with Council member Zwick's request that the City Council approve taking a support position on both SB 79 and SB 677.

My reasons to oppose this is that it continues to override our local control of zoning and does not address the key housing issue of affordable or under market housing in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Karen Melick
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1456 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 12 David Yakobson
From: Johncysmith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 4/08/25 Council meeting Items 16.E and 16.F

EXTERNAL
Dear City Clerk, Staff,
Please have the two included slides ready when I speak on the above items during Item 6 Public Comment.

Thank you for all you do.

Sincerely,
John C Smith
Rec and Parks Commissioner
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1457 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 13 Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1458 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 15 Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 17 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: City Council - 4/8/25 - Agenda Items 16-E and 16-F -- Wilmont Board Opposes Both Efforts to Take a "Support" position on SB 79 and SB 677

EXTERNAL
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
[email protected]
Begin forwarded message:

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 18 o The purchase of 1-3 story apartment buildings will result in displacement of current renters, land costs will go up and the only winners will be the developers.
o The idea that more market rate housing could reduce housing prices in Santa Monica is not economically viable.
 SB 677 continues the erosion of local control over our own zoning. This legislation would lift the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits statewide, continuing a give away to developers and making it harder for residents and future residents to buy land. It also would remove the prohibition against owners who have previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split - meaning it would become legal for a piece of land to be subdivided multiple times, essentially at once e.g., there could be 16 units on a 5,000 square foot lot.
o The R1 owner-occupancy requirement has already been agendized based on the three city council members asking for an ordinance eliminating to be presented in the April 22, 2025 city council meeting. This issue should have a full city council meeting agenda item discussion with a public hearing to be voted on by the city council. This should not be confused with an unpassed, newly proposed state law. There is no reason to vote on this unpassed, proposed state legislation before this key issue goes through our own city process. We asked you to oppose the 16 F. resolution.

We also wonder if voting on these 16-items prematurely could have implications regarding a lawsuit that is currently in process.

Wilmont Board of Directors
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 19 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting 4/8/25 -- Items 16-E , 16-F - Oppose endorsement by city council of SB 79 and SB 677

EXTERNAL
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
[email protected]
Begin forwarded message:

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1462 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 20 residential community, who don’t want you to sell our community assets, especially our libraries, and not by giving developers the right to strafe our city with unregulated market rate housing.

Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Wilmont Chair
Speaking only for myself
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1463 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 21 David Yakobson
From: Brent Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: City Council Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

EXTERNAL
Begin forwarded message:

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1464 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 22 There’s also a public hearing scheduled for April 22 on related land use issues. If the City Council votes now, before hearing from residents, it undermines the public process we’re legally and morally entitled to. Not to mention, Santa Monica is already facing litigation over a similar issue. Acting hastily now could open us up to even more legal risks.

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

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1465 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 23 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:33 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Cc: Bruce Leddy; Nancy Coleman; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: ITEM 16E. and 16F - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 24 fewer than nineteen discrete policies in state law. This bill eliminates all of the provisions in SB 9 (Atkins) that were intended to quell investor speculation and were intentionally and explicitly written to afford the SB 9 allowances to homeowners. These essential provisions of SB 9 are: 1) the requirement for split lots to be of approximately equal areas, 2) that neither the owner of a parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with that owner may have subdivided an adjacent parcel, and 3) that an applicant for a lot split shall be required to sign an affidavit attesting to their intent to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the lot split (the "owner-occupancy" rule).

The Board of NOMA strongly opposes SB 79 and SB 677 and we urge you to vote NO on Item 16.E and Item 16.F.
cc:

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Richard Daum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

EXTERNAL
Our household stands with Friends of Sunset Park.

An additional thought - Where is the water coming from? Richard Daum
3035 Linda Lane
Santa Monica, CA 90405
[email protected]
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 12:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: April 8, 2025 Item 16-E and 16-F OPPOSE

Support of SB79 and SB 677 would be another nail in the coffin of our cherished Santa Monica R-1 neighborhoods.

Santa Monica is a kaleidoscope of unique neighborhood personaliƟes-Downtown, the Beach, Pico, Montana, Wilmont, Mid-City, Ocean Park, Sunset Park.

Who should be in charge of the colors of our kaleidoscope? The state or ourselves? Please do NOT support SB 79 and SB 677.

Cathy Larson
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth W <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 10:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Please Oppose Agenda Items 16-E and 16-F for us

EXTERNAL
Please see below email, thank you.

Thank you so much for your direction!
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
Get Outlook for iOS
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:39 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Please Oppose Agenda Items 16-E and 16-F for us

Hi Elizabeth,

Please also forward your email below to [email protected] so it's included in the public record.

Thank you!

Zina Josephs
FOSP Secretary

******************************************************* Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 4 In a message dated 4/7/2025 8:28:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

To Our Elected Council Members,

I ask that you please hear and represent my voice, and the voices of each of my family members when you consider Items 16-E and 16-F tomorrow: we virulently oppose these items. They are truly an affront to our Santa Monica community and in conflict with everything we love about our city, our homes, schools, and skyline. Abdicating our power as a city to state decision making about local zoning is not why we voted for each of you.

Please don't sacrifice Santa Monica and ignore your constituents' voices. Please oppose agenda items 16 E+F.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Wallen and Family
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 5 David Yakobson
From: Kim Alexandriuk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

EXTERNAL
Please read my email below.

Thank you,
Kim

KIM ALEXANDRIUK

KIM ALEXANDRIUK INTERIOR DESIGN
2264 22nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310.399.7000 phone
www.alexandriuk.com
Begin forwarded message:

Dear Mayor Negrete and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to you as a concerned resident who has lived in Santa Monica for over 25 years, regarding the proposed bills SB 79 and SB 677.

I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and to take a clear stand against them.

I urge you to stand with the residents of Santa Monica and oppose both SB 79 and SB 677.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 6 Kim Alexandriuk
22nd Street resident

KIM ALEXANDRIUK

KIM ALEXANDRIUK INTERIOR DESIGN
2264 22nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310.399.7000 phone
www.alexandriuk.com
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 7 David Yakobson
From: Gizelle Strohkendl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 9:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

Sincerely Gizelle Strohkendl
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 8 David Yakobson
From: Mary Duprey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE!

None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. There are no affordability requirements for any of this. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.

Sincerely,
Mary Duprey
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 10 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:39 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: SM Forward Support Letter for 16 E & F -- SB 79 & 677

These bills are not just important for Santa Monica, they're important to ensure that statewide more of the housing we desperately need is actually built.

Thank you for your continued commitment to equitable and forward-thinking policymaking.

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 11 Sincerely,
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 12 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose.

EXTERNAL
뽁뽂뽃뽀뽄뽅뽆뽇
Katharine Dreyfuss reacted via Gmail
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 7:25 PM councilmtgitems <[email protected]> wrote:

If you plan to speak at the meeting and have an electronic presentation to show, please submit it to [email protected] no later than 12 PM on the day of the meeting.

Thank you,
The City Clerk’s Office
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 13 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F/Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I oppose Councilmember Zwick's request that the City Council approve the City taking a "Support" position on both SB79 (Weiner) and SB 677 (Weiner).

Thank you.

Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 14 David Yakobson
From: Soledad Ramos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 7:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and to take a clear stand against them.

Both of these bills represent a dangerous shift away from our community’s ability to manage local planning and zoning.

They would permanently alter the character of Santa Monica, forcing unchecked development onto our neighborhoods.

Without major upgrades to infrastructure, schools, and traffic systems, the city will be overwhelmed — with severe consequences for both current and future residents.

I urge you to stand with the residents of Santa Monica and oppose both SB 79 and SB 677.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Soledad Ramos
2609 Cloverfield blvd
cel: 310 927 1811
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 15 David Yakobson
From: darkosuvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 7:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Urgent : Opposing SB 79 and SB 677 for Santa Monica’s Future!!!!

EXTERNAL
Begin forwarded message:

I urge you to consider the long-term consequences of these bills.

It is critical that our city takes a firm stance by enacting a resolution to oppose both SB 79 and SB 677.

We must preserve our ability to make decisions that align with the needs and wishes of Santa Monica’s residents.

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 16 Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Darko Suvak
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 17 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 7:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose.

EXTERNAL
In a message dated 4/7/2025 6:39:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Dear Mayo Negrete and City Council members:

As a 56-year resident of Santa Monica, I urge you to oppose Agenda Items 16E and 16F.

Both measures assign authority over city property to the state, rather than to its City Council.

Item 16E overrides local control of zoning in order to legalize inordinately tall, multifamily buildings without requiring affordability or parking requirements.

Item 16-F erodes local control over zoning, including allowing multiple splits of individual lots.

Please assure Santa Monica residents that their City Council will retain its authority over planning and land use decisions.

Do not allow developers and speculators to interfere with local authority.

Thank you for respecting Santa Monica's right to control its zoning.

Best,
Katharine R. Dreyfuss

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 18 David Yakobson
From: Ivana Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 7:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and to take a clear stand against them.

I urge you to stand with the residents of Santa Monica and oppose both SB 79 and SB 677.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Ivana Suvak
32nd Street resident
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 19 David Yakobson
From: Sarit Marcus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 6:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F

EXTERNAL
LETTER FROM FRIENDS OF SUNSET PARK BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

These are extremely radical bills that would fundamentally and forever change all of Santa Monica. We encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these bills instead.

None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. There are no affordability requirements for any of this. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 20 Thank you,
Sarit Marcus
Residential home owner at 2432 32nd St
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 4:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F -- STRONGLY OPPOSE

Please forward your email to [email protected] so it gets into the public record.

Zina Josephs
FOSP Secretary
******************************************************* In a message dated 4/7/2025 3:40:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 2 city would be spared from this designation. That means, R1, R2, R3, everything. On even the quietest streets of our beautiful city, these buildings could be up to 75 feet tall, or even higher in certain cases, with a density of up to 120 units per acre.

None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. There are no affordability requirements for any of this. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.

This is a giveaway to developers, making it harder for normal people to buy land.

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 4:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 4:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SB 79 and SB 677 ------ I oppose

EXTERNAL
I strongly oppose
SB 79 and SB 677 and urge
the council to stand up for Santa Monica !!
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 3:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: 4/8/25 agenda items 16-E and 16-F – OPPOSE!

These are extremely radical bills that would fundamentally and forever change all of Santa Monica. I encourage the City Council to enact a resolution to oppose these bills instead.

None of the developments under SB 79 would be required to build parking. There are no affordability requirements for any of this. Nothing about this makes housing in Santa Monica more affordable.

Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 4 David Yakobson
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 2:49 PM
To: Council Mailbox; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda items 16-E and 16-F – oppose

The city should retain control of such urban planning decisions - not the state.

Regards,
Will
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 5 David Yakobson
From: John Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 2:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda items 16E and 16F-OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Please add to the public record.

It's very disheartening!
I urge you to oppose these radical overtures from the State Legislature.

Respectfully,
John Reynolds
3217 17th Street
213-598-2120
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:53 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Oppose Council Agenda Items 16E and 16F on April 8, 2025 City Council Agenda Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must ask you to oppose Agenda Items 16E and 16F on April 8, 2025 City Council agenda.

I ask you to Oppose both SB79 and SB 677. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025
Item 16-F
April 8, 2025

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7032 : Support SB 677) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 9:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Subject: We ask you to Oppose both SB79 and SB 677 to protect Santa Monica City Charm & Integrity! April 8th
Attachments: Snapshot-50976.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed