Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, April 8, 2025

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
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
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
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
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.

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. Plus, demolishing homes to build rental units DECREASES the amount of homes for sale in Santa Monica.

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
5 https://thearp.org/blog/apportionment/2030-apportionment-forecast-2024 Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
13 Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
15 Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Darko Suvak
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
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
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
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
20 Thank you,
Sarit Marcus
Residential home owner at 2432 32nd St
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
Item 16-E
April 8, 2025
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.

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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

Santa Monica City CouncilApril 8, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
April 8, 2025