Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, April 22, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 2 Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 3 David Yakobson
From: Michelle Bielas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:35 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Michelle Stevens
90405
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.

Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
• Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week.

Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 4 David Yakobson
From: Nisha Sunku <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Nisha Sunku, MD
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 5 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 6 David Yakobson
From: Homegrown Recording & Collective <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Danny Pravder
90043
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 7 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 8 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 3:47 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Daniel Walsh, CAIA
90401
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 9 Daniel P. Walsh, CAIA
[email protected]
570-807-9818
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 10 David Yakobson
From: Kevin Mitchell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 3:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comments for 4-22-25 Meeting Re Item 10A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. If it is allowed to go forward on a permit-only special event basis, such action seems to undercut the intent and purpose of the ordinance to spur more visitors and bolster economic recovery for Promenade businesses, as well as the CIty as a whole. The proposed plan seems like no real action at all.

Further, I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Thank you.

Kevin Mitchell
90405
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 11 permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
• Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 12 David Yakobson
From: Jonah <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 2:43 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance 10A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Jonah L,
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:

Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.

Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.

Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.

Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 13 EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 14 David Yakobson
From: Jonathan Haski <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 2:38 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Jonathan Haski
90405
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 15 Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 16 David Yakobson
From: Jason Ramin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 2:30 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Jason Ramin
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 17 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 18 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 1:45 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Lisa Gray
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 19 Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 20 David Yakobson
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 1:30 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 10: Entertainment Zone Proposal is Very Bad

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council,
I'm not sure that anyone is going to be happy with staff's entertainment ordinance proposal, which reads like what I'd propose if I wanted to kill the idea and, along with it, any hope SB 969 could help generate more revenue for a City that desperately, desperately needs it. Perhaps staff doesn't yet understand how dire the City's financial situation is? The only silver lining, I guess, is that we all now have a new shorthand for explaining how impossible it can do business in Santa Monica -- a permitting chart that staff didn't even bother to make
legible: https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/GetImage.aspx?Type=25&ID=/Aspose.Words.1 b42f746-8f1a-4369-9088-0b029167256a.001.png ((and let's be honest, even you could make out the words, we all know it wouldn't be remotely acceptable).

If we want this idea to have any chance of succeeding, it can't be a pilot, it can't be for one-off events, it can't have onerous and overly complicated permitting requirements; it can't require significant outlay of PD overtime and other staff hours; instead, it needs to be a straightforward set of regular hours by which existing and new business can participate. Keep it simple, so that businesses can make investments, and residents and visitors know to come here in the first place -- like other "entertainment zones" around the country and, yes, the world.

I'm sure Council is going to have no problem developing and implementing quickly here a better proposal than staff so I won't get into details about hours etc, but I do want to focus on some institutional issues that seem to plague City management and decision-making:

1. "With All Due Speed":

When Councilmembers Davis and Zwick proposed this item, and Mayor Negrete moved it, the motion was to be completed "with all due speed." As then-Councilmember Davis explained, other SoCal jurisdictions would soon be looking to do the same, and novelty would give us an advantage in attracting visitors and establishing (re-establishing) the Third Street Promenade as a plan to have fun.

So how in the world did this take six months? Six months for a 10-page report with a blurry chart? Six months for a report that doesn't even do what Council asked (see below)? The Third Street Promenade is already pedestrianized -- we have the perfect place to get this up running quickly and simply, but instead we got a needlessly complicated report that fails even to propose permanent rules or give clear guidance to businesses.

I don't think staff should have more than 30 days to correct this; it's already ridiculous this took so long.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 21 2. A Pilot Program? Where are the other options?
Council did not ask for a pilot program. SB 969 has a consultation requirement with PD, but it does not put PD in charge of designing policy -- here, Council asked for an ordinance change and, after six months, got back an extremely expensive, temporary proposal from PD. How are businesses supposed to invest with a 1-year pilot? How are visitors supposed to even learn this is something we have with a 1-year pilot, let alone use it?
At the very least, if this was PD's good faith proposal, staff should have presented options that actually implemented what Council asked for. Option 1: Simple ordinance change for set hours.

Option 2: Simple ordinance change for special events only (with a chart you can read, and ideally one that provides a one-stop shop for businesses looking for permits). Option 3: Police's 1-year pilot proposal. Then let Council, the folks who are democratically elected, choose which option they'd like to implement. But that didn't happen, so now it's -- again, six months later -- and Council doesn't even have the opportunity to implement what they asked for. Staff can't say it didn't have time to generate other options!
This is a real problem, because -- as you know all too well -- Council has effectively zero resources and does not have their own staff; if they did, frankly, I don't think a staff report would have been returned like this.

3. Has PD actually studied this issue? Or looked at any other jurisdictions that do this successfully (Savannah is the prime example but there are others)? As happens with basically anything the City wants to do that might bring in visitors and generate revenue, PD has said it's not possible without significantly increased police staffing -- at least 4 officers per block. I have many, many questions:
--Is there anything PD can point to as to why we need at least 4 officers per block? That seems like a lot. Presumably, we already have foot patrols on the Third Street Promenade as part of our base level of staffing? (Though I do know our MOU with the POA says that only PD officers can do foot patrols in places like Main Street, but I've personally never encountered a Main Street foot patrol....perhaps something to look into...) Physically, we are also not a large city, so if anything does happen, I imagine PD officers elsewhere can respond quickly and appropriately? If we really did need more security, is there any reason private security who can radio police wouldn't work? --Has PD looked at crime stats for other jurisdictions with alcohol social districts? My understanding is that, while the data are limited, one of the most proven ways to increase public safety is to get more eyes on the street; in other words, dead zones aren't safe, but busy areas actually mean fewer incidents escalate. PD can't be everywhere, so does PD agree that getting more people out there enjoying our City would help with public safety? I'm also not exactly happy that this report took six months, and there's somehow nothing in it from PD looking at how non-California jurisdictions have handled their alcohol social districts? Did PD talk to those other departments? I'm not in any way suggesting more study, but, frankly, these expensive recommendations need to be better backed up if they're effectively going to kill a Council-initiated program. --DUI is cited as a concern. What are we currently doing for DUIs? I know we occasionally have grant-funded sobriety checkpoints, but do we do DUI saturation patrols like other jurisdictions? I remember looking at the stats last New Year's Eve and we had something like 4 DUI stops and/or arrests, though presumably many, many more people were driving drunk. So I gather we're not doing Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 22 DUI saturation patrols on one of the biggest nights for DUI of the year? Perhaps we should be rethinking how we approach and target DUI instead of using the real danger of DUI to kill a program that could bring some life back to this City?
Again, I don't think we need to go back and study all these issues now before implementing a better program -- if that was going to happen, it could have happened over the last six months, a fix-it proposal should take no more than a month -- but, honestly, there are deeper structural-institutional problems here that need addressing.

I'm not sure how it hasn't happened already, but it needs to be impressed upon staff that the City is in a financial hole and business as usual -- making it impossible for businesses and Council to take advantage of new revenue-generating opportunities -- isn't going to cut it if we want to continue paying for this City.

Thank you all for your time.

Best wishes,
Brian Sweeney
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 23 David Yakobson
From: Kenneth Warner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 12:30 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Ken
90405
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 24 David Yakobson
From: John Lin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:36 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

John Lin
Santa Monica downtown 90401
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:

Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 25 EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

John Lin
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 26 David Yakobson
From: Selena Kingsley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:14 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Oppose the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members
I am writing to oppose the proposed entertainment zone in the promenade area. I’m not interested in living in a New Orleans-type of environment with a bunch of drunks encouraged to roam around in open spaces. We pay exorbitant prices for rent to live in a city that already struggles to keep the public spaces clean and safely accessible. We don't need to make it worse.

I understand that helping the local businesses is the goal, but we can do better than turning the promenade into a bar.

Selena Kingsley
90405
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 27 David Yakobson
From: Ryan Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:08 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I believe a big part of restoring effectiveness to our state and local government should be a much greater willingness to move quickly and add process later if needed rather than starting with intense process for every policy change, even if that means making mistakes, as long as mechanisms are in place to correct those mistakes quickly. (Please let me know if any members of council or city staff would like my copies of Jennifer Phalka's Recoding America or Ezra Klein/Derek Thompson's Abundance, they should be required reading for all California Democrats right now and they're doing no good on my bookshelf right now.) I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Ryan Olson
90405
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 28 minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 29 David Yakobson
From: Alexandra Kalinowski <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:07 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Alexandra Kalinowski
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 30 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Alexandra Kalinowski
she/her
Composer, Songwriter, Vocalist
www.alexandrakalinowski.com/
+1-310-985-0007
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 31 David Yakobson
From: Cassie Stuurman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:04 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Cassie Stuurman
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 32 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 33 David Yakobson
From: Eleanor Huntington <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:02 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Eleanor Huntington
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:

Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 34 EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 35 David Yakobson
From: Dan Burks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:17 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please listen to your fellow Santa Monicans - the Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. It's a program wanted by residents, tourists, and business owners alike. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Thank you for your time and consideration!
Daniel Burks
90404 (Husband, father, homeowner)
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 36 Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Dan Burks
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 37 David Yakobson
From: Tommy Thornton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:12 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Tommy Thornton
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 38 Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 39 David Yakobson
From: KJ Knies <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:06 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Kyle Knies
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 40 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect. sent on the go
206.551.9920
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 41 David Yakobson
From: Connor Vance <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 9:58 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Connor Vance
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 42 David Yakobson
From: Nicholas Quirk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:58 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Nick Quirk
Zip code 90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 43 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 1 David Yakobson
From: Brian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Open container vote

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I would like to express my support for an ordinance change to support the allowance of open alcohol containers on third Street promenade. I believe it will add much needed foot traffic to the area as well as revitalize the restaurant industry in the area.

Kind regards,
Brian Thomas
Sent from Proton Mail Android
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 1 David Yakobson
From: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 9:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 10A/Entertainment Zones

EXTERNAL
Please do not overthink the establishment of an entertainment zone in Santa Monica. If you genuinely care about economic development, you must know that the staff recommendation is insufficient to make the Promenade the first and best Entertainment Zone in the region. These types of open container areas (frequently called Designated Outdoor Refreshment Areas or DORAs) are well-established, weekly occurrences in dozens of communities in the U.S. and have been incredibly successful in revitalizing commercial areas. You do not have to reinvent the wheel here. Just steal enabling regulations from Savannah, GA or Dayton, OH and you'll have all you need. And, it should not be a pilot; it should be permanent. Moreover, it should not be tied to special events but should have regular hours every week. Don't think of this as a "mass gathering" (as the staff report describes it). Think of it as an enhanced way of doing business designed to bring back the crowds that once characterized the Promenade. If you want this to be a successful program, consider the following:

1. People should not have to know if there is a special event to know that Downtown Santa Monica is the place to have fun and stroll with their favorite recreational beverage. You want people to come to DTSM regularly and repeatedly, which they are more likely to do if they know that the Entertainment Zone is a regular fixture. Having the Entertainment Zone only activated occasionally will not draw people back. Knowing that they can meander down the Promenade any weekend while enjoying a beverage will.

2. One of the benefits of an Entertainment Zone is increased foot traffic. Increased foot traffic for three special events a year will not change the situation on the Promenade or in DTSM. Regular weekly activation will. Increasing foot traffic will encourage prospective tenants to lease currently vacant spaces on the Promenade and throughout downtown. Moreover, increased foot traffic, especially at night, should encourage current tenants to expand their hours. This creates a virtuous upward cycle of more business (and more sales tax revenue).

3. You do not need to regulate the sale of alcohol. The licensed businesses selling alcohol are very regulated and can do that. For example, the folks selling alcohol should card the purchasers. If you want them to make sure that folks walking on the Promenade with a beverage are over 21, then have the vendors distribute wristbands once proof of ID is shown. Requiring one proof of ID per drink will keep adults from buying drinks for underage persons.

4. Let Downtown Santa Monica businesses be meaningful participants. For example, let businesses that don't normally sell beverages easily obtain permits for fun events. There are many companies that offer temporary bar set-ups that are fully licensed and will comply with the law. I'm sure they would be happy to work with local businesses Imagine if Barnes & Noble was able to do a wine-tasting in conjunction with a book reading. Or if Lululemon or Alo Yoga could sell Mimosas to shoppers on Sunday. And let DTSM sponsor (and share in the revenue from) events in the public areas. Maybe a beer garden on one block and a "paint and sip" art class on Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 2 another? How about more movies on the Promenade with something stronger than buttered popcorn?

5. Please do not bury this program in process. The chart in the staff report is mind-numbing. Make it easy to get a permit; make it easy to yank a permit from businesses that don't follow the rules. Make the window decals, the cups, and wristbands (if you want them) available through DTSM. Don't make businesses schlep to City Hall.

6. The rules should be simple:
 signs should let patrons know when they are entering the Entertainment Zone-you don't have to control ingress and egress;
 no outside alcohol should be allowed in the zone;
 any "to go" alcohol should be served in a special Entertainment Zone cup;  the cups should be single-use---no refills (and yes you can get compostable cups);  signs can remind visitors when they are leaving the zone with strategically placed trash cans for them to dispose of unfinished drinks and used cups (if you feel that you must have a human being at egress points use an ambassador or private security);  businesses within the zone should be given a choice of decals to place at their entrances-one for businesses that offer "to go" drinks, one for non-alcohol serving businesses that welcome people with a "to-go" beverage, and one for businesses that do not allow "to go" beverages in their establishment.

If you do this right, it can be a gamechanger for the Promenade. Moreover, once you get it up and running, it should be a no-brainer to expand the concept of an Entertainment Zone to other parts of the City. I am certain that businesses in the wider downtown area and Main Street would be receptive to such an idea.

Please do not miss this opportunity to really make a difference in the economic heart of our City. And do it quickly. Other cities are moving to establish entertainment zones. We should be the first. Thanks.

Gleam Davis
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 3 David Yakobson
From: Allon Percus <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 9:48 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Allon Percus
1105 Centinela Ave.

Santa Monica, CA 90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:

Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 4 EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 5 David Yakobson
From: Eli Gill <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 9:42 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Make Santa Monica Fun Again: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Let's Go!
Eli Gill
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 6 Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 7 David Yakobson
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 7:44 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.

Sam Shapiro-Kline
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:

Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 8 EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 9 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 3:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Subject: RE: April 22, 2025 Council Agenda Item 10A: Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program
Attachments: DTSM Inc Entertainment Zones Support Letter 4.22.25.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Honorable Council Members, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) is pleased to express our strong support for City staff’s recommendation to amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code to advance the Entertainment Zone Pilot Program as a tool to promote economic recovery.

DTSM, Inc. supported the passage of SB 969, the enabling legislation allowing local jurisdictions to create designated outdoor "Entertainment Zones." We believe that establishing an Entertainment Zone on the Third Street Promenade will directly benefit businesses, enrich the existing event experience for visitors, and create exciting new opportunities to attract foot traffic, stimulate local spending, and strengthen community engagement.

We also want to acknowledge and thank City staff for their ongoing partnership and creative thinking, particularly in identifying ways for DTSM, Inc. to generate revenue in support of Entertainment Zone programming. Ideas such as extending the placement duration and expanding the footprint of branded signage within the event space are promising steps toward building a sustainable activation model.

While we are enthusiastic about the proposal, we respectfully ask the Council to consider two key concerns that may limit the program’s long-term success:

1. Cost of City Services – The current staffing requirements for Police, Fire, and Public Works present a risk of making the events cost-prohibitive. We ask the City to consider either covering these costs directly or allowing DTSM, Inc. to supplement with our own contracted security personnel in a manner that meets safety standards while maintaining financial feasibility.

2. Achieving Critical Mass – For the Entertainment Zone to thrive, we must ensure sufficient participation from local businesses. We encourage the City to explore flexible, streamlined processes that allow alcohol-licensed businesses to temporarily occupy vacant Promenade storefronts or provide bar service directly within the activation area. These measures would not only increase participation and create dynamic experiences but could also open the door for collaboration with other Santa Monica businesses, both Downtown and citywide, who may wish to participate. Such participation could help DTSM, Inc. offset event-related costs through shared financial responsibility.

Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 10 Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important initiative. We believe the Entertainment Zone Pilot Program has the potential to meaningfully contribute to the recovery and continued vibrancy of Downtown Santa Monica.

Respectfully,
Andrew Thomas, LPM
Chief Executive Officer
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
1351 Third Street Promenade, Ste. 201
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310.393.8355 (Office)
www.DowntownSM.com
Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | TikTok
Sign up for our newsletter
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected] Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
April 18, 2025
RE: April 22, 2025 Council Agenda Item 10A: Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Honorable Council Members, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) is pleased to express our strong support for City staff’s recommendation to amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code to advance the Entertainment Zone Pilot Program as a tool to promote economic recovery.

While we are enthusiastic about the proposal, we respectfully ask the Council to consider two key concerns that may limit the program’s long-term success:

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected] occupy vacant Promenade storefronts or provide bar service directly within the activation area. These measures would not only increase participation and create dynamic experiences but could also open the door for collaboration with other Santa Monica businesses, both Downtown and citywide, who may wish to participate. Such participation could help DTSM, Inc. offset event-related costs through shared financial responsibility.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important initiative. We believe the Entertainment Zone Pilot Program has the potential to meaningfully contribute to the recovery and continued vibrancy of Downtown Santa Monica.

Respectfully,
Andrew Thomas
Chief Executive Officer
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.

CC: DTSM, Inc. Board of Directors
Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek
Community Development Director Arminé Chaparyan
Economic Development Manager Jennifer Taylor
Planning Manager Jing Yeo
Senior Planner James Combs
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) 11 David Yakobson
From: Chasen Daniels <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 9:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 10.A – Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I’m writing to express strong concerns about the direction of the proposed Entertainment Zone Pilot Program as outlined in the staff report for Agenda Item 10.A.

The original vision behind creating an Entertainment Zone on the Third Street Promenade was to support ongoing economic revitalization by establishing a regularly scheduled, accessible, and low-barrier zone for businesses and visitors—not a limited, event-based model tethered to a handful of Citysanctioned activations over a one-year period. What staff is proposing does not reflect that vision.

Instead, it builds unnecessary bureaucracy and fails to provide the flexibility or simplicity required to foster innovation, attract foot traffic, or support our local businesses in a meaningful way.

We should be making it easier—not harder—for businesses to operate, experiment with new concepts, and thrive. A vibrant entertainment zone should be structured around recurring activations and business-led participation, not special events that require layers of approvals, restrictive oversight, and unclear rules.

On that note, I want to call out something particularly frustrating and frankly insulting in the staff report:
the inclusion of a completely illegible flowchart intended to illustrate the permitting process. How are residents, business owners, or even Councilmembers expected to understand or comment meaningfully on a process they can’t even read? This undermines transparency and confidence in the City's implementation of what should be a community-focused effort.

This plan, as it stands, is not bold or innovative—it’s a half-step that burdens organizers, limits creativity, and betrays the original intent of SB 969. I urge the Council to redirect staff to develop a real entertainment zone that is simple, recurring, business-friendly, and designed for long-term impact—not just another pilot program that overpromises and underdelivers.

Thank you,
Chasen Daniels - 90401
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6800 : Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 22, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items
Subject: Appointments to five seats on the Transit Security Advisory Committee for terms ending June 30, 2027.

Prepared By: Liseth Guizar, Transit Safety and Training Manager, Big Blue Bus Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.A
Packet Pg. 733
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Transit Security Advisory Committee
Name Application Date
*Adams, Gregory L. 04/14/2025
Bell, Maurice 04/09/2025
Costello, Edward 04/09/2025
Foy Jr., Frederick W. 04/08/2025
Gottstein, Amy 04/14/2025
Kaplan, Jennifer 04/09/2025
Weller, Kecia B. 04/09/2025
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 7
* Not eligible

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Applicant List (6766 : 16.A. Appointments to the Transit Security Advisory Committee) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 22, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items
Subject: Request of Councilmember Raskin that the City Council consider City sponsorship of The Janes Mile, a community running event celebrating women's fitness, scheduled for Sunday, May 11, 2025, in Santa Monica, by waiving up to $5,000 in event-related City fees. With over 300 participants expected, the event will promote health, support local businesses, and benefit wildfire recovery efforts.

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

16.B
Packet Pg. 735
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 22, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items
Subject: Request of Mayor Negrete that the City Council approve City sponsorship of Pali Strong – Healing, Hope, and Community by the Sea taking place on May 6, 2025 on the Santa Monica Pier by directing the City Manager to waive the City’s portion of fees for use of the Pier. Related city fees include application, administrative, neighborhood notification, business license, fire, parking, and zero waste plan fees associated with the use of the Pier in an amount up to $16,000 in waived fees.

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

16.C
Packet Pg. 736
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 22, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items
Subject: Request of Councilmember Zernitskaya and Councilmember Zwick that the City Council take a “Support if Amended” position on AB 306 (Shultz) which would impose a six-year moratorium, from June 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, on the adoption or modification of state and local building standards affecting residential units, with limited exceptions. As noted in the letter from the City of West Hollywood (attached), the City of Santa Monica would request that the bill be amended such that only new residential units would be impacted by the bill. Additionally, the City would request an amendment to clarify that cities and counties may relax local building code standards such that they revert to the state standard, and that state and local governments can adopt the state 2025 code and allow work to begin on the 2031 state building codes before June 1, 2031 in order to proceed with the normal code adoption process for the 2031 code. The City Council directs the City Manager to prepare and send a letter expressing the City’s Support if Amended position that articulates Council’s amendment request and sends the letter to the bill author, Senator Allen and Assemblymember Zbur.

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

A. 01_City of West Hollywood Oppose Unless Amended Letter on AB 306 (April 9, 2025)
B. 02_Assembly Floor Analysis- March 12, 2025
C. 03_Assembly Appropriations Analysis – March 19, 2025 D. 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025

16.D
Packet Pg. 737
2 of 2
E. 05_Full Text of AB 306, as amended March 12, 2025
F. 06_Status of AB 306, as of April 17, 2025
G. Written Comments

16.D
Packet Pg. 738
April 9, 2025
Hon. Nick Schultz
California State Assembly
1021 O St., Ste. 5150
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 306 Building regulations: state building standards, as amended March 19, 2025. OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED
Dear Assemblymember Schultz,
The City of West Hollywood must regrettably oppose your Assembly Bill (AB) 306 Building regulations: state building standards, unless it is amended.

Energy use from existing buildings is one of the City of West Hollywood's largest sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. If AB 306 were to become law as amended on March 19, 2025, West Hollywood would not be able to meet its climate goals, which align with the State’s progressive climate agenda. In addition to not meeting carbon neutrality by 2035, the City would not be able to deliver on the West Hollywood Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (WeHo Climate Action) commitments as noted below:
• Adopt a building performance standard to improve the energy performance, health, and comfort of large existing buildings • Adopt reach codes to decarbonize new buildings
• Adopt reach codes to decarbonize existing buildings
• Increase and incentivize EV charging in new and existing buildings Almost all the buildings that will exist in West Hollywood in 2035 are the ones we already have today. Since West Hollywood has a significant number of older residential buildings, many of which were constructed before the current energy efficiency standards, improving energy performance in existing buildings is a critical step toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2035.

City Hall
8300 Santa Monica Blvd.

West Hollywood, CA
90069-6216
Tel. (323) 848-6460
FAX (323) 848 6562

CITY COUNCIL

CHELSEA LEE BYERS
Mayor

JOHN HEILMAN
Vice Mayor
JOHN M. ERICKSON
Councilmember
Danny Hang
Councilmember

LAUREN MEISTER
Councilmember
City of
West Hollywood

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: 01_City of West Hollywood Oppose Unless Amended Letter on AB 306 (April 9, 2025) (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support As we experience more extreme weather events like high heat and storms resulting from climate change, there is a greater need to improve the maintenance, performance, and resiliency of existing buildings for our residents.

For two years now, the City has been developing its Equitable Building Performance Standard and has engaged the community on how energy improvements to existing buildings can benefit tenants and building owners while reducing unintended consequences to frontline communities. Without the ability to improve the performance of these buildings and reduce the emissions generated by them, the City will not be able to meet its 2035 carbon neutrality goal.

We realize that your bill’s intention is to address the disastrous consequences of the fires in Los Angeles County this past January, and we applaud your initiative. However, if the goal of AB 306 is to increase the supply of housing and rebuilding of homes, applying this bill’s requirements to existing homes does nothing to spur new construction. By narrowing the bill to new construction, local governments can continue to advance codes to improve comfort and affordability like requiring energy efficiency retrofits or space heating/cooling units to be heat pumps at the time of replacement.

Therefore, we respectfully request that you consider amending the bill as follows:

Section 4, 17958.7
“(c) Commencing June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, the commission shall reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a new residential unit and filed by the governing body of a city or county, unless one of the following conditions is met:”
We truly appreciate your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
Chelsea Lee Byers
MAYOR
C: Hon Ben Allen, SD-24
Hon Rick Chavez Zbur, AD-51

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: 01_City of West Hollywood Oppose Unless Amended Letter on AB 306 (April 9, 2025) (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306

Page 1 ends

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 306 (Schultz and Rivas)
As Amended March 12, 2025
2/3 vote. Urgency

SUMMARY
Imposes a moratorium on the adoption or modification of new state and local building standards affecting residential units from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions.

Major Provisions
1) Prohibits the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) and any other adopting agency, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units unless any of the following conditions is met:
a) The CBSC deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety;
b) The building standards are related to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM);
c) The building standards are proposed for adoption in relation to the SFM's study of standards for single-exit, single stairway apartment houses with more than two dwelling units in buildings above three stories; or
d) The building standards are proposed for adoption pursuant to an adaptive reuse standards working group, to reduce potable water use in new residential buildings, or to support risk-based water quality standards for the onsite treatment and reuse of nonpotable water for certain residential buildings, as specified.
2) Prohibits a city or county from making changes or modifications to building standards affecting residential units, including to green building standards, from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the following conditions is met:
a) The changes or modifications are substantially equivalent to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the governing body of the city or county and were in effect as of January 1, 2025;
b) The CBSC deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety;
c) The changes or modifications relate to home hardening; or d) The building standards relate to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by a fire protection district pursuant to existing provisions governing the proposal of new standards by fire protection districts.

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: 02_Assembly Floor Analysis- March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 2 ends

3) Requires CBSC to reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a residential unit filed by the governing body of a city or county, from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the conditions in 2) above is met. 4) Includes an urgency clause.

COMMENTS
Background on Building Standards: Most building standards in use in California are developed and vetted at the national level every three years by technical organizations, academics, and trade associations that develop national consensus standards, which are then incorporated into the International Building Code (IBC), the national model code. State agencies with authority over various occupancies then review the IBC and amend as necessary for California's specific needs.

There are around 20 state agencies that develop and propose standards via a public vetting process. A code advisory committee composed of experts in a particular scope of code reviews the proposed standards, followed by public review. The proposing agency considers feedback and may then amend the standards and re-submit them to the CBSC for consideration. CBSC reviews and adopts the standards and files them with the Secretary of State for codification and publishing, and there is a 180-day period during which local agencies file modifications and changes to the state codes (though they are not limited to this window). The new codes then take effect January 1 of the subsequent year following publication. Updates and changes to building standards are adopted on two timelines: through the triennial code adoption cycle which occurs every three years, and through the intervening code adoption cycle which provides an update to codes 18 months after the publication of the triennial codes. Regulatory activities for each cycle begin over two years before the effective date of the codes.

Local Amendments to State Codes: Local governments are provided wide latitude to make changes and modifications to the state codes – so long as they exceed or are more protective than the state baseline, not a reduction – and for codes affecting residential buildings (excluding energy "reach codes" which follow a different process), neither the CBSC nor statute requires the local modifications to include any cost determinations or economic impact analysis. Local governments simply have to include a finding in their filing with the CBSC that the modifications are "reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions" (Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 17958.7) or environmental conditions for green building standards. CBSC does not currently have the authority to review these findings for validity, merits, or the justification of reasonableness, nor do the local amendments have to follow more rigorous state review criteria requiring state building standards to "not [be] unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair, or capricious, in whole or in part" (HSC 18930(a)(4)) or have a "cost to the public [that is] reasonable, based on the overall benefit to be derived from the building standards" (HSC 18930(a)(5)).

Los Angeles Wildfires and Rebuilding Challenges: The fires in Southern California that began on January 7th displaced tens of thousands of Los Angeles County residents. Once the fires were extinguished, more than 13,000 homes and apartments had been destroyed. Disasters compound existing housing market challenges and the Los Angeles region had been in a severe housing affordability crisis well before the sudden destruction of 13,000 housing units. Many of the homes that burned in the fires were built decades ago, even before the state had adopted certain building standards which are now extremely robust, like the Energy Code which was first adopted in the late 1970s. In addition, not all affected properties were insured, or had minimal

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: 02_Assembly Floor Analysis- March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 3 ends

insurance that likely lacked building code upgrade/replacement coverage. Thus, some owners will not be able to draw on insurance payouts to assist with rebuilding older homes and apartments up to current code, as is generally required. Since these older homes and apartments were built, there have been many additions to state and local code requirements that owners will have to incorporate into their rebuilding plans in order to be issued building permits, including requirements to install fire sprinklers in all new dwellings, solar panels and battery storage in certain types of residential construction, larger electrical panel capacity and more 240V outlets for electric vehicles and appliances, and more.

It is likely to take fire victims who wish to rebuild several years to remediate sites, receive insurance payouts or FEMA financial assistance and line up financing, locate contractors and supplies, and pull permits to begin reconstruction. Given this lengthy rebuilding timeline and the frequency of code changes every 18 months, building codes will continue to be modified during the rebuilding period. While not all code modifications are significant, further changes to these requirements may present challenges to fire victims as building codes only "lock in" when a person receives a building permit from a local government.

Key Provisions of This Bill: This bill would impose a six-year moratorium on the proposal or adoption of new state building standards and modifications to building standards affecting residential units (new and existing) from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031. There are a small number of exceptions – first, if the standards are proposed via the existing emergency standards process and the CBSC agrees with the proposing agency that the standards meet the criteria for emergency adoption. Second, if the standards are proposed by the SFM and relate to home hardening. And third, for recently enacted legislation that directed code agencies to study and recommend changes to standards related to single-exit single stairway apartments, adaptive reuse of nonresidential buildings for residential uses, and the reduction of potable water use and treatment and reuse of nonpotable water in certain multifamily buildings.

This bill would also impose a six-year moratorium on the adoption of new local amendments and modifications to building standards affecting residential units (new and existing) from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031. Local agencies would be permitted to re-file amendments or modifications that are substantially equivalent to those that they already had in effect as of January 1, 2025 – in effect a "hold harmless" to allow the reauthorization of any local standards that are already in place – but new amendments impacting residential units would not be permitted unless they meet limited exceptions similar to the state exceptions.

Individuals may still choose to exceed the state baseline codes, as they always have the option to do. In addition, proposals impacting new and existing non-residential buildings would still be permitted to continue. All the items contained in the most recent triennial code that will take effect January 1, 2026 will continue to go into effect as planned, as those codes have already been adopted by the CBSC. Code agencies will still be able to bring new proposals to the CBSC through the emergency standards process if there is justification for the urgency of those standards. And agencies and stakeholders may continue to work on other non-emergency items and could have them ready to propose immediately upon expiration of the moratorium.

Frequency of Code Changes: Building codes are updated every 18 to 36 months. This frequency of changes means that when agencies are publishing final versions of triennial codes, they are already beginning to coordinate proposed changes for the next cycle before the ink is barely dry on the new codes. This rush to begin formulating amendments to codes that have not yet actually

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: 02_Assembly Floor Analysis- March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 4 ends

taken effect raises a number of concerns. Triennial and intervening code cycles effectively "back up" into each other, given the intensive calendar of code advisory committee reviews, public comment periods, and staff resources that must be allocated to develop and vet new changes and comply with regulatory timelines. The speediness of new changes also raises questions regarding the cost analyses that are required for standards, given there may not have been sufficient time for developments to have completed construction under the new standards (many projects take longer than 18 months to complete) and have quality data that agency staff can utilize when performing these cost analyses. Some agencies, like the Energy Commission, must perform more granular cost-effectiveness analyses of new standards, although these are amortized over an anticipated 30-year timeframe and involve complex energy and construction cost modeling.

Furthermore, once codes are in effect, a large array of individuals have to be trained up to the new requirements – including local building officials who are charged with implementing and enforcing the codes, planners and architects who design projects, contractors and subcontractors who are managing projects, various tradespeople responsible for the specific construction work, and building inspectors who have to sign off on the work being completed up to the relevant codes in effect at the time building permits were pulled. Temporarily pausing further changes will allow the current workforce and local building officials to learn the newest code requirements and have certainty that they will remain in place for six years such that they will not have to take time to re-learn and reconfigure certain practices every 18-to-36 months.

In addition, given the lengthy timeline for some development projects to get approvals and for affordable housing in particular to line up many financing sources, and in single-family projects with phased sequencing of tracts of a subdivision, projects sometimes have to be redesigned once or multiple times to keep up with new codes. For developers, time is money and delays and redesigns contribute to increased overall project costs. A temporary moratorium would provide certainty to both affordable and market-rate developers facing longer project timelines that significant redesigns or modifications will not be necessary to comply with new requirements.

Numerous Additional Directives and Mandates in Recent Years: The Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed multiple additional directives to research and propose new building standards in recent years. Some of the most impactful mandates have also come from outside stakeholders or the adopting agencies themselves (rather than the Legislature), like solar panel mandates and fire sprinkler requirements. There are a number of legitimate and important concerns that are addressed by these and many other elements of building standards for housing.

However, the framework for proposing and adopting new standards leaves agencies in silos with regard to the volume or costs of new proposals that counterpart agencies are also simultaneously developing. Cost analyses are performed on each individual modification or for each respective chapter, not on the accumulation of the entirety of changes in each intervening or triennial cycle across all agencies. Holistic review is therefore difficult and while individual standards may increase costs by what appears a reasonable amount, from a different lens, the cost of the totality of all cumulative changes may be less reasonable. In addition, cost impacts to affordable housing developments are less visible in these analyses as these increased costs are indirectly borne by the state via higher per-unit development costs in the state's grant, tax credit, and loan financing programs rather than extrapolated as a direct impact to the state budget in the evaluation process.

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: 02_Assembly Floor Analysis- March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 5 ends

electric-ready requirements and retrofit mandates contained in the most recent 2025 Energy Code update will still take effect and the proposed moratorium would become active after.

Stanford University's Pathways to Carbon Neutrality in California (2022) report on existing buildings points to the diminishing returns of continuing to increase energy efficiency requirements for new residential buildings. This is due to a number of factors, including the slow pace of residential construction, which has rarely exceeded 100,000 units per year since 2018 (according to HCD's Annual Progress Report Data Dashboard), in contrast with the roughly 14.6 million existing housing units in the state, many of which were constructed before the Energy Code existed, let alone the robust energy efficiency requirements elevated in more recent code cycles. Given the longevity of building use, most of these existing homes will still be in use for decades more. The volume of energy consumption from existing homes as compared to new homes is drastically higher. New homes consume a small fraction of the amount of the energy consumed in existing homes, such that a 5% energy savings achieved in existing homes would amount to the same as 10 years' worth of new net-zero residential construction.

Challenges with Mandating Retrofits and Alterations to Existing Housing: Despite the high emission reduction impact possible with a focus on existing homes, there are significant challenges with how to achieve these retrofits and upgrades – for example, availability of labor familiar with newer technologies, upfront costs that lower income residents may not be able to bear while waiting for rebates or incentives, high electricity rates, and more. In addition, while homeowners face one set of costs and incentives when making decisions about when and how to upgrade and retrofit their homes, property owners with tenants in rental units may face an entirely different set of costs/incentives and tenants may be negatively impacted.

Strategic Actions for a Just Economy's Decarbonizing California Equitably: A Guide to Tenant Protections in Building Upgrades/Retrofits Throughout the State (2023) identifies a number of these challenges if energy efficiency retrofit policies for existing residential units are not carefully crafted with possible repercussions to tenants – especially low-income tenants – in mind. While tenants may benefit from energy savings on utility bills, property owners are likely to pass on costs of retrofit/upgrade work to tenants in the form of increased rents. Disruptions from construction work may negatively impact habitability in the tenant's home or may necessitate they relocate for days or weeks (possibly at their own expense), and tenants who lack robust eviction protections may face "renoviction" if a property owner seeks to remove a tenant entirely to perform the work in question. Given the long-term ripple effects of the displacement wrought by the fires (and risk of more displacement from future disasters) pushing thousands more people into the Los Angeles region's extremely tight housing market, imposing additional retrofit requirements – of any kind, not just with regard to energy codes – on the existing residential stock may inadvertently cause further displacement of tenants and increased rents.

According to the Author
"California has a multi-million unit housing deficit. This mismatch of supply and demand has resulted in our longstanding housing crisis. Our home prices are double the national average, a majority of renters sacrifice basic needs like food and health care to pay for housing, and we have an astonishing level of homelessness, exceeding 180,000 unhoused Californians. The recent fires in Los Angeles have only exacerbated these housing issues.

California's building codes are some of the most energy-efficient and protective of health and life safety in the nation, but the cumulative impact of ever more aggressive building code updates has

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: 02_Assembly Floor Analysis- March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 6 ends

measurably increased the cost of new housing construction. Industry stakeholders estimate the upfront cost increases of the code changes made over the last 15 years to be in the $50,000- $100,000 range per single-family unit, not including further cost pressures from local modifications.

AB 306 would pause additional changes to state building standards affecting residential construction for six years, excluding emergency changes necessary for protecting health and safety and home hardening. This bill would also prohibit local governments from making new modifications to residential building standards for six years, with limited exceptions.

This moratorium will bring more certainty to the home construction industry and help stem further construction cost increases, given the demand surge from the volume of homes and apartments that will need to be rebuilt in Los Angeles. Freezing the codes affecting residential construction will prevent further cost increases for new homes and apartments. Pausing further changes will also allow the current contractor workforce and local building officials to absorb the newest code requirements and have certainty that they will remain in place for six years such that they will not have to take time to relearn and reconfigure certain practices every 18-to-36 months.

Given it is likely to take affected individuals several years to remediate sites, receive insurance payouts or financial assistance and line up financing, locate contractors and supplies, and pull permits to begin reconstruction, further increases and changes to building standards requirements will only make the rebuilding process more difficult and costly for residents." Arguments in Support
According to the California Housing Consortium, "The affordable housing industry is under immense financial stress for various reasons, including the high cost of building housing in California. Excessive state and local regulatory requirements drive up the cost of building affordable housing in our state, including building code requirements that go above and beyond what is needed to protect the health and safety of California residents. These requirements are often imposed without a holistic review that analyzes the aggregate impacts of various state and local regulatory requirements and how these add to the cost of producing affordable housing. By pausing additional changes to state and local building standards for residential construction, AB 306 would provide affordable housing developers with relief from unexpected increases in project costs associated with changes to building code requirements." Arguments in Opposition
According to a coalition of environmental and energy groups, including the Climate Action Campaign, Natural Resources Defense Council, and US Green Building Council – Los Angeles, "While the bill allows exceptions for 'health and safety standards' and 'fire hardening' […] AB 306 omits consideration of green building standards as a basis for acceptable code updates. This omission implies that the authors believe sustainability measures impose an unjustifiable cost on homeowners and developers. Is this the authors' intention? Some of our issues of concern include protecting new reach codes, EV charging requirements, energy efficiency upgrades, elimination of NOx-emitting appliances, and achievement of greenhouse gas reduction goals—all of which are being addressed by forward-thinking building codes in development around California. We hope that halting this progress towards a cleaner, healthier future is not the author's intent."

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: 02_Assembly Floor Analysis- March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 7 ends

FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

CBSC and HCD will each incur costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to evaluate each statewide rulemaking proposal and each local modification proposal that affects residential units to determine if the proposal meets the bill's exemption criteria. 1) CBSC estimates annual costs of approximately $262,000 for six years (Service Revolving Fund) for one permanent staff position to perform the additional analyses necessary to determine if a local or statewide proposal meets the exemption criteria of fire and life safety or home hardening. CBSC indicates it lacks existing staff with the needed background to evaluate these issues because these reviews typically fall under the authority of the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

Further, CBSC indicates staff will need to review local modification and change proposals in more detail to compare each ordinance to those already codified from the previous year, and to ensure they are substantially similar or equivalent, not more restrictive than previous years. CBSC notes the bill requires CBSC to make its own determination on whether the ordinance is substantially similar or equivalent, unlike CBSC's existing process, which relies on findings made by the local agency. CBSC anticipates these additional responsibilities will at least double the staff time needed to review these proposals, but anticipates these costs will be minor and absorbable.
2) HCD estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $226,000 annually, beginning in fiscal year 2026-27, for one staff position to handle increased inquiries from CBSC to ascertain whether local code changes fall under an exemption and to advise CBSC on local amendments. HCD notes CBSC has no direct authority for residential building standards and will most likely require HCD's assistance reviewing local code amendments. Additionally, HCD anticipates the need to provide technical assistance to local government agencies, builders, design professionals, and the public and will likely need to create and publish clarifying information.

HCD further indicates it may require additional positions once the moratorium is lifted in 2031, when it expects to face a significant surge in workload to update and implement multiple building standard changes delayed during the six-year pause. 3) The California Energy Commission (CEC) anticipates no costs from this bill. 4) The cost, if any, to the SFM is unknown at this time.

VOTES
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 12-0-0
YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Gallagher, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Wicks, Wilson, Gabriel
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1
YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hadwick, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: 02_Assembly Floor Analysis- March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 8 ends

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon

UPDATED
VERSION: March 12, 2025
CONSULTANT: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0000170

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: 02_Assembly Floor Analysis- March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 1 ends

Date of Hearing: March 19, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
AB 306 (Schultz and Rivas) – As Amended March 12, 2025
Policy Committee: Housing and Community Development Vote: 12 - 0 Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY:

This bill imposes a six-year moratorium, from June 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, on the adoption or modification of state and local building standards affecting residential units, with limited exceptions.

Specifically, this bill:
1) Prohibits the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), within the Department of General Services (DGS), and any other adopting agency, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units unless any of the following conditions are met:
a) The CBSC deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.
b) The building standards are related to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM).
c) The building standards are proposed for adoption in relation to standards researched pursuant to AB 835 (Lee), Chapter 345, Statutes of 2023, relative to single-exit, singlestairway apartment houses. d) The building standards are proposed for adoption pursuant to AB 529 (Gabriel), Chapter 743, Statutes of 2023, regarding adaptive reuse residential projects. e) The building standards are proposed for adoption pursuant to SB 745 (Cortese), Chapter 884, Statutes of 2023, regarding water efficiency in new buildings. 2) Prohibits a city or county from making changes or modifications to building standards affecting residential units, including to green building standards, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, unless any of the following conditions are met:
a) The changes or modifications are substantially equivalent to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the city or county and were in effect as of January 1, 2025. b) The CBSC deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: 03_Assembly Appropriations Analysis – March 19, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 2 ends

c) The changes or modifications relate to home hardening. d) The building standards relate to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by a fire protection district pursuant to existing provisions governing the proposal of new standards by fire protection districts.
3) Requires CBSC to reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a residential unit filed by a city or county, from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the conditions in item 2, above, is met.

FISCAL EFFECT:

CBSC and HCD will each incur costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to evaluate each statewide rulemaking proposal and each local modification proposal that affects residential units to determine if the proposal meets the bill’s exemption criteria. 1) CBSC estimates annual costs of approximately $262,000 for six years (Service Revolving Fund) for one permanent staff position to perform the additional analyses necessary to determine if a local or statewide proposal meets the exemption criteria of fire and life safety or home hardening. CBSC indicates it lacks existing staff with the needed background to evaluate these issues because these reviews typically fall under the authority of the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

Further, CBSC indicates staff will need to review local modification and change proposals in more detail to compare each ordinance to those already codified from the previous year, and to ensure they are substantially similar or equivalent, not more restrictive than previous years. CBSC notes the bill requires CBSC to make its own determination on whether the ordinance is substantially similar or equivalent, unlike CBSC’s existing process, which relies on findings made by the local agency. CBSC anticipates these additional responsibilities will at least double the staff time needed to review these proposals, but anticipates these costs will be minor and absorbable.
2) HCD estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $226,000 annually, beginning in fiscal year 2026-27, for one staff position to handle increased inquiries from CBSC to ascertain whether local code changes fall under an exemption and to advise CBSC on local amendments. HCD notes CBSC has no direct authority for residential building standards and will most likely require HCD's assistance reviewing local code amendments. Additionally, HCD anticipates the need to provide technical assistance to local government agencies, builders, design professionals, and the public and will likely need to create and publish clarifying information.

COMMENTS:

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: 03_Assembly Appropriations Analysis – March 19, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 3 ends

1) Purpose. The author seeks to help address California’s housing crisis by placing a moratorium on new building standards or local modifications affecting residential construction. According to the author:

California’s building codes are some of the most energy-efficient and protective of health and life safety in the nation, but the cumulative impact of ever more aggressive building code updates has measurably increased the cost of new housing construction. Industry stakeholders estimate the upfront cost increases of the code changes made over the last 15 years to be in the $50,000-$100,000 range per single-family unit, not including further cost pressures from local modifications.

Building Standards. Existing law authorizes the CBSC to approve and adopt building standards through a triennial rulemaking process to revise and update the California Building Standards Code. There are approximately 20 state agencies that develop building standards and propose them for adoption to CBSC. HCD is responsible for proposing building standards to CBSC for residential buildings, hotels, and motels. Building standards take effect 180 days after they are published, unless a different date is specified.

Updates and changes to building standards are adopted through the triennial code adoption cycle which occurs every three years and through the intervening code adoption cycle, which provides an update to codes 18 months after the publication of the triennial codes. Regulatory activities for each cycle begin over two years before the effective date of the codes. The most recent update to the Building Standards Code, the 2025 Triennial Edition, takes effect on January 1, 2026. Existing law also requires CBSC to publish the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) once every three years. The most recent edition, the 2025 CALGreen Code, also takes effect on January 1, 2026. Because CBSC has already adopted these codes, they will go into effect as planned, on January 1, 2026, even if this bill becomes law.

Local agencies are authorized to adopt stricter building codes than the state based on climactic, geologic, or topographic conditions. Existing law requires CBSC to review each such ordinance, to ensure the local agency has clearly marked what is being amended and how, the local agency cites its statutory authority, and the required findings and certifications are included. During the 2022 code adoption cycle, CBSC received 515 ordinances from local agencies throughout the state and spent 1,875 staff hours reviewing them. This bill requires CBSC to reject local modifications and changes to the code unless exemption criteria are met.

Los Angeles Wildfires and the Governor’s Executive Order (EO). On January 7, 2025, two wildfires, the Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire, ignited in Los Angeles County. Together, these fires destroyed over 16,000 structures, including over 13,000 housing units. In response to these wildfires, Governor Newsom issued EO N-4-25 on January 12, 2025, instructing HCD,

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: 03_Assembly Appropriations Analysis – March 19, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 4 ends

within 60 days and in consultation with DGS, the SMF and the CEC to review and provide recommendations to the Governor regarding any provision of the Building Standards Code that should be suspended in order to facilitate rapid, safe, and cost-effective rebuilding and recovery. It is unknown at this point whether the Governor will suspend any specific provisions of building codes for wildfire-related rebuilding projects. 3) Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by a variety builders and housing advocates who assert state and local building code requirements drive up the cost of building affordable housing and believe pausing the building code update cycle will be beneficial to the state’s affordable housing crisis.

This bill is opposed by numerous environmental and energy groups who are concerned the bill omits consideration of green building standards as a basis for acceptable code updates, including protecting new reach codes, EV charging requirements, energy efficiency upgrades, among others.
4) Related Legislation. AB 6 (Ward), of this legislative session, requires HCD to convene a working group regarding allowing residential developments between three and 10 units to be designed and built under the requirements of the California Residential Code rather than the California Building Code, and requires HCD to research construction cost pressures for residential construction due to building standards and provide a report to the Legislature. AB 6 is pending in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: 03_Assembly Appropriations Analysis – March 19, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) AB 306

Page 1 ends

Date of Hearing: March 12, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Matt Haney, Chair
AB 306 (Schultz) – As Amended March 5, 2025
SUBJECT: Building regulations: state building standards SUMMARY: Imposes a moratorium on the adoption or modification of new state and local building standards affecting residential units from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions. Specifically, this bill:
1) Prohibits the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) and any other adopting agency, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units unless either of the following conditions is met:
a) The CBSC deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety; or
b) The building standards are related to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM).
2) Prohibits a city or county from making changes or modifications to building standards affecting residential units, including to green building standards, from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the following conditions is met:
a) The changes or modifications are substantially equivalent to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the governing body of the city or county and were in effect as of January 1, 2025;
b) The CBSC deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety;
c) The changes or modifications relate to home hardening; or d) The building standards relate to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by a fire protection district pursuant to existing provisions governing the proposal of new standards by fire protection districts.
3) Requires CBSC to reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a residential unit filed by the governing body of a city or county, from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the conditions in 2) above is met. 4) Includes an urgency clause.

EXISTING LAW:
1) Establishes the CBSC within the Government Operations Agency and requires CBSC to receive proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle, with procedures that ensure adequate public participation, notice and

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AB 306

Page 2 ends

justification, technical review, and opportunities for advisory input before adoption by CBSC. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 18920 and 18921.1) 2) Requires any building standard adopted or proposed by state agencies to be submitted to, and approved or adopted by, the CBSC prior to codification. Requires building standards submitted for approval to include an analysis written by the agency proposing the standards which justifies the approval using the following criteria:
a) The proposed building standard does not conflict with, overlap, or duplicate other building standards;
b) The proposed standard is within the parameters established by enabling legislation and is not expressly within the exclusive jurisdiction of another agency; c) The public interest requires the adoption of the building standard, which includes, but is not limited to, health and safety, resource efficiency, fire safety, seismic safety, building and building system performance, and consistency with environmental, public health, and accessibility statutes and regulations;
d) The proposed standard is not unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair, or capricious; e) The cost to the public is reasonable, based on the overall benefit to be derived; f) The proposed standard is not unnecessarily ambiguous or vague; g) The applicable national specifications, published standards, and model codes have been incorporated where appropriate;
h) The format of the proposed standard is consistent with that adopted by the CBSC; and i) The proposed standard, if it promotes fire and panic safety, as determined by the SFM, has the written approval of the SFM. (HSC 18930(a))
3) Requires every agency subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to prepare and submit an initial statement of reasons for proposing the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation, which must include certain information, including for building standards, the estimated cost of compliance, the estimated potential benefits, and the related assumptions used to determine the estimates. (Government Code Section 11346.2(b)(5)(B)(i)) 4) Allows any city or county to make changes or modifications to building standards that regulate structures used for human habitation and published in the California Building Standards Code (state building code) upon express findings, as specified. If any city or county does not amend, add, or repeal ordinances or regulations to impose those requirements or make changes or modifications in those requirements upon express findings, the provisions published in the state building code and other regulations apply to the city or county and take effect 180 days after publication by the CBSC. (HSC 17958) 5) Allows a city or county, in adopting ordinances or regulations under 4) above, to make changes or modifications in the requirements of the state building code and other regulations, including green building standards, as it determines are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. (HSC 17958.5)

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AB 306

Page 3 ends

6) Requires the governing body of a city or county, before making any modifications or changes under 5) above, to make an express finding that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions, and requires those findings as well as the modification or change expressly marked and identified to be filed with the CBSC. Prohibits a modification or change from becoming effective or operative until the finding and modification or change have been filed with CBSC. (HSC 17958.7(a))
7) Allows CBSC to reject a modification or change filed by the governing body of a city or county if no finding was submitted under 6) above. (HSC 17958.7(b)) 8) Requires CBSC to act upon emergency standards within 30 days and only when the adopting agency or state agency that proposes the building standards has made the finding of emergency required under the APA, as specified, and the adopting agencies have adopted the emergency standard in compliance with the APA, and the CBSC concurs with that finding of emergency. Requires the concurrence and the approval of the emergency building standards to be made with an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the CBSC attending a meeting, or not less than six affirmative votes, whichever is greater. (HSC 18937)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “California has a multi-million unit housing deficit. This mismatch of supply and demand has resulted in our longstanding housing crisis. Our home prices are double the national average, a majority of renters sacrifice basic needs like food and health care to pay for housing, and we have an astonishing level of homelessness, exceeding 180,000 unhoused Californians. The recent fires in Los Angeles have only exacerbated these housing issues.

California’s building codes are some of the most energy-efficient and protective of health and life safety in the nation, but the cumulative impact of ever more aggressive building code updates has measurably increased the cost of new housing construction. Industry stakeholders estimate the upfront cost increases of the code changes made over the last 15 years to be in the $50,000- $100,000 range per single-family unit, not including further cost pressures from local modifications.

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AB 306

Page 4 ends

they will not have to take time to relearn and reconfigure certain practices every 18-to-36 months.

Most building standards currently in use in California are developed and vetted at the national level every three years by technical organizations, academics, and trade associations that develop national consensus standards, which are then incorporated into the International Building Code (IBC), the national model code used by most US jurisdictions. At the state level, state agencies with authority over specified occupancies then review the IBC and amend as necessary for California’s specific needs. There are approximately 20 state agencies that develop building standards and propose them for adoption to the CBSC.

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AB 306

Page 5 ends

After the proposal of building standards by state agencies, the standards undergo a public vetting process. A code advisory committee composed of experts in a particular scope of code reviews the proposed standards, followed by public review. The proposing agency considers feedback and may then amend the standards and re-submit them to the CBSC for consideration. CBSC reviews and adopts the standards and files them with the Secretary of State for codification and publishing, and there is a 180-day period during which local agencies file modifications and changes to the state codes (though they are not limited to this window). The new codes then take effect January 1 of the subsequent year following publication.

Updates and changes to building standards are adopted on two timelines: through the triennial code adoption cycle which occurs every three years, and through the intervening code adoption cycle which provides an update to codes 18 months after the publication of the triennial codes.

Regulatory activities for each cycle begin over two years before the effective date of the codes.

Local Amendments to State Codes: Local governments are provided wide latitude to make changes and modifications to the state baseline codes – so long as they exceed or are more protective than the state baseline, not a reduction – and for codes affecting residential buildings (excluding energy “reach codes” which follow a different process), neither the CBSC nor statute requires the local modifications to include any cost determinations or economic impact analysis.

Local governments simply have to include a finding in their filing with the CBSC that the modifications are “reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions” (HSC 17958.7) or environmental conditions for green building standards. CBSC does not currently have the authority to review these findings for validity, merits, or the justification of reasonableness, nor do the local amendments have to follow the APA or more rigorous state review criteria requiring state building standards to “not [be] unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair, or capricious, in whole or in part” (HSC 18930(a)(4)) or have a “cost to the public [that is] reasonable, based on the overall benefit to be derived from the building standards” (HSC 18930(a)(5)).

Los Angeles Wildfires and Rebuilding Challenges: The fires in Southern California that began on January 7th displaced tens of thousands of Los Angeles County residents. Once the fires were extinguished, more than 13,000 homes and apartments had been destroyed. Disasters compound existing housing market challenges and the Los Angeles region had been in a severe housing affordability crisis well before the sudden destruction of 13,000 housing units. Constrained housing supply has led to increased housing cost burdens, especially among populations vulnerable to disaster. A myriad of recovery assistance programs, timelines, and restrictions have brought further instability to fire survivors’ efforts to locate new housing while deciding if and how they will rebuild their destroyed homes.

In response to the wildfires, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-4-25 on January 12, 2025 which included the following provisions related to building standards: “5. HCD, in consultation with DGS, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, and the California Energy Commission, shall, within 60 days, review and provide a report to me with recommendations regarding any provision of the Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, that should be suspended for [rebuilding projects] in order to facilitate rapid, safe, and cost-effective rebuilding and recovery.” No information is available yet regarding whether the Governor will move to suspend any specific provisions of building codes for such projects.

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AB 306

Page 6 ends

Many of the homes that burned in the fires were built decades ago, even before the state had adopted certain building standards which are now extremely robust, like the Energy Code which was first adopted in the late 1970s. In addition, not all affected properties were insured, or had minimal insurance that likely lacked building code upgrade/replacement coverage. Thus, some owners will not be able to draw on insurance payouts to assist with rebuilding older homes and apartments that were destroyed up to current code, as is generally required when rebuilding.

Those who did opt for building code upgrade coverage may only have had a minimal amount.

Since these older homes and apartments were built, there have been many additions to state and local code requirements that owners will have to incorporate into their rebuilding plans in order to be issued building permits, including requirements to install fire sprinklers in all new dwellings, solar panels and battery storage in certain types of residential construction, larger electrical panel capacity and more 240V outlets for electric vehicles and appliances, and more.

It is likely to take fire victims who wish to rebuild several years to remediate sites, receive insurance payouts or FEMA financial assistance and line up financing, locate contractors and supplies, and pull permits to begin reconstruction. Given this lengthy rebuilding timeline and the frequency of code changes every 18 months, building codes will continue to be modified during the rebuilding period. While not all code modifications are significant, further changes to these requirements may present challenges to fire victims as building codes only “lock in” when a person receives a building permit from a local government.

Key Provisions of This Bill: This bill would impose a six-year moratorium on the proposal or adoption of new state building standards and modifications to building standards affecting residential units (new and existing) from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031. Two exceptions to the state moratorium are provided – first, if the standards are proposed via the existing emergency standards process outlined in HSC 18937 and the CBSC agrees with the proposing agency that the standards meet the criteria for emergency adoption. And second, if the standards are proposed by the SFM and relate to home hardening. The moratorium would only apply to standards affecting residential units, meaning standards for nonresidential buildings would remain unaffected.

This bill would also impose a six-year moratorium on the adoption of new local amendments and modifications to building standards affecting residential units (new and existing) from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031. Local agencies would be permitted to re-file amendments or modifications that are substantially equivalent to those that they already had in effect as of January 1, 2025 – in effect a “hold harmless” to allow the reauthorization of any local standards that are already in place – but new amendments impacting residential units would not be permitted unless they meet limited exceptions. Those exceptions are similar to the state exceptions, including for emergency reasons, for home hardening, or those proposed by a fire protection district that relate to home hardening under specified law allowing for fire protection districts to make such changes.

Individuals may still choose to exceed the state baseline codes, as they always have the option to do. In addition, code proposals impacting new and existing non-residential buildings would still be permitted to continue as expected. All the items contained in the most recent triennial code that will take effect January 1, 2026 will continue to go into effect as planned, as those codes have already been adopted by the CBSC at their recent meetings on February 26-28, 2025 and December 17-19, 2024. Code agencies will still have the option to bring new proposals to the CBSC to address pressing health and safety issues through the emergency standards process if

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AB 306

Page 7 ends

there is sufficient justification for the urgency of those standards. And agencies and stakeholders may continue to work on other non-emergency proposals and could have them ready to propose immediately upon expiration of the moratorium.

Frequency of Code Changes: As previously mentioned, building codes are updated every 18 to 36 months. This frequency of changes means that when code agencies are publishing final versions of triennial codes, they are already beginning to coordinate the review and analysis of new proposed changes for the next intervening code cycle before the ink is barely dry on those “new” codes. For example, although CBSC just adopted many chapters of new codes for the current triennial cycle in December and February, which will not take effect until January 1, 2026, they are simultaneously already preparing the next intervening code cycle with workshops for March 20, 2025: “During the pre-cycle period of an Intervening Code Adoption Cycle, proposing state agencies hold public workshops to discuss possible supplemental amendments to the 2025 Code. Workshops provide an open forum for the public and industry stakeholders to participate in vetting potential modifications to California's building codes. Approved code changes will result in supplements (blue pages) to the 2025 edition of Title 24, and will become effective July 1, 2027.”
This rush to begin formulating amendments to codes that have not yet actually taken effect raises a number of concerns. Triennial and intervening code cycles effectively “back up” into each other, given the intensive calendar of code advisory committee reviews, public comment periods, and staff resources that must be allocated to develop and vet new changes and comply with regulatory timelines. The speediness of new changes also raises questions regarding the cost of compliance analyses that are intended to be performed for new standards, given there may not have been sufficient time for development projects to have actually completed construction under the new standards (many projects take longer than 18 months to complete) and have quality data that agency staff can utilize when performing these cost analyses. Some agencies, like the Energy Commission, must perform more granular cost-effectiveness analyses of new standards, although these are amortized over an anticipated 30-year timeframe and involve complex energy and construction cost modeling.

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AB 306

Page 8 ends

Numerous Additional Directives and Mandates in Recent Years: The Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed multiple additional directives to research and propose new building standards in recent years around proposals like rainwater catchment, electric vehicle charging, water efficiency and reuse, adaptive reuse projects, “single stair” apartments exceeding three stories, and beyond. Some of the most impactful mandates in recent years have also come from outside stakeholders or the adopting agencies themselves (rather than the Legislature), like solar panel mandates and fire sprinkler requirements. There are a number of legitimate and important concerns that are addressed by these and many other elements of building standards for housing.

However, the framework for proposing and adopting new standards leaves agencies in silos with regard to the volume or costs of new proposals that counterpart agencies are also simultaneously developing. Cost analyses are performed on each individual modification or for each respective chapter, not on the accumulation of the entirety of changes in each intervening or triennial cycle across all agencies. Holistic review is therefore difficult and while individual standards may increase costs by what appears a reasonable amount, from a different lens, the cost of the totality of all cumulative changes may be less reasonable. In addition, cost impacts to affordable housing developments are less visible in these analyses as these increased costs are indirectly borne by the state via higher per-unit development costs in the state’s grant, tax credit, and loan financing programs rather than extrapolated as a direct impact to the state budget in the evaluation process.

Limited GHG Benefits from Continued Increases in New Housing Standards: The state has made significant strides over the last decade to increase stringency in energy efficiency for new residential construction. To that end, under the bill, the increased performance standards, electric-ready requirements and retrofit mandates contained in the most recent 2025 Energy Code update will still take effect and the proposed moratorium would become active after. Stanford University’s Pathways to Carbon Neutrality in California (2022) report on existing buildings points to the diminishing returns of continuing to increase energy efficiency requirements for new residential buildings due to a number of factors, including:
 The slow pace of residential construction, which has rarely exceeded 100,000 completed units per year since 2018, according to HCD’s Annual Progress Report Data Dashboard.  The number of existing housing units, which 2022 Census data identifies as roughly 14.6 million, many of which were constructed before the Energy Code existed, let alone the robust energy efficiency requirements elevated in more recent code cycles. Given the longevity of building use, most of
these existing homes will still be in
use for decades.
 The volume of energy consumption
from existing homes as compared to
new homes (see table). New homes
consume a small fraction of the
amount of the energy consumed in
existing homes, such that a 5%
energy savings achieved in existing
homes would amount to the same as
10 years’ worth of new net-zero
residential construction. Pathways to Carbon Neutrality in California (2022), Stanford University

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AB 306

Page 9 ends

Strategic Actions for a Just Economy’s (SAJE’s) Decarbonizing California Equitably: A Guide to Tenant Protections in Building Upgrades/Retrofits Throughout the State (2023) identifies a number of these challenges if energy efficiency retrofit policies for existing residential units are not carefully crafted with possible repercussions to tenants – especially low-income tenants – in mind. While tenants may benefit from energy savings on utility bills, property owners are likely to pass on costs of retrofit/upgrade work to tenants in the form of increased rents. Disruptions from construction work may negatively impact habitability in the tenant’s home or may necessitate they relocate for days or weeks (possibly at their own expense), and tenants who lack robust eviction protections may face “renoviction” if a property owner seeks to remove a tenant entirely to perform the work in question.

Given the long-term ripple effects of the displacement wrought by the fires (and risk of more displacement from future disasters) pushing thousands more people into the Los Angeles region’s extremely tight housing market, imposing additional retrofit requirements – of any kind, not just with regard to energy codes – on the existing residential stock may inadvertently cause further displacement of tenants and increased rents.

Arguments in Support: According to the California Housing Consortium, “The affordable housing industry is under immense financial stress for various reasons, including the high cost of building housing in California. Excessive state and local regulatory requirements drive up the cost of building affordable housing in our state, including building code requirements that go above and beyond what is needed to protect the health and safety of California residents. These requirements are often imposed without a holistic review that analyzes the aggregate impacts of various state and local regulatory requirements and how these add to the cost of producing affordable housing. By pausing additional changes to state and local building standards for residential construction, AB 306 would provide affordable housing developers with relief from unexpected increases in project costs associated with changes to building code requirements.” Arguments in Opposition: According to a coalition of environmental and energy groups, including the Climate Action Campaign, Natural Resources Defense Council, and US Green Building Council – Los Angeles, “While the bill allows exceptions for ‘health and safety standards’ and ‘fire hardening’ […] AB 306 omits consideration of green building standards as a basis for acceptable code updates. This omission implies that the authors believe sustainability measures impose an unjustifiable cost on homeowners and developers. Is this the authors’ intention? Some of our issues of concern include protecting new reach codes, EV charging requirements, energy efficiency upgrades, elimination of NOx-emitting appliances, and achievement of greenhouse gas reduction goals—all of which are being addressed by forwardthinking building codes in development around California. We hope that halting this progress towards a cleaner, healthier future is not the author’s intent.”

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AB 306

Page 10 ends

Related Legislation:

AB 6 (Ward) of the current legislative session would require HCD to convene a working group regarding allowing residential developments between 3 and 10 units to be designed and built under the requirements of the California Residential Code rather than the California Building Code, and would require HCD to research construction cost pressures for residential construction as a result of building standards and provide a report to the Legislature on its findings.

SB 597 (Glazer, Chapter 861, Statutes of 2024): Required HCD to research and develop recommendations regarding building standards for installation of rainwater catchment systems for nonpotable uses in newly constructed residential dwellings, and requires a report to specified committees of the Legislature by January 1, 2027.

AB 529 (Gabriel, Chapter 743, Statutes of 2023): Required HCD to convene a working group regarding adaptive reuse residential projects, including identifying and recommending amendments to state building standards.

SB 745 (Cortese, Chapter 884, Statutes of 2023): Required HCD and CBSC to research, develop, and propose building standards to reduce potable water use in new residential and nonresidential buildings, and requires CBSC to perform a review of water efficiency and water reuse standards each triennial cycle and update these standards as needed.

AB 835 (Lee, Chapter 345, Statutes of 2023): Required the SFM to research standards for singleexit, single-stairway apartment houses in buildings above three stories and provide a report to specified legislative committees and to CBSC by January 1, 2026.

AB 1738 (Boerner, Chapter 687, Statutes of 2022): Required HCD and CBSC to research and develop mandatory building standards for the installation of EV chargers and not simply a requirement for “EV capable” spaces in existing multifamily and nonresidential buildings during retrofits, additions, and alterations, and mandates future updates to these standards at each triennial code adoption cycle until 2033.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnership Corporation
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Support If Amended
California Association of Realtors
Opposition
350 Bay Area Action
350 Conejo / San Fernando Valley

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AB 306

Page 11 ends

350 Humboldt
350 Marin
350 Sacramento
350 Southland Legislative Alliance
Acterra: Action for A Healthy Planet
Active San Gabriel Valley
Ban Sup (single Use Plastic)
California building Officials
California Solar & Storage Association
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Carbon Free Silicon Valley
Climate Action California
Climate Action Campaign
Climate Action Petaluma
Climate Reality Contra Costa County Policy Action Squad Climate Reality Project San Diego
Climate Reality Project, California Coalition
Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter
Climate Reality Project, Orange County
Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley
Cool Petaluma
Design Avenues LLC
Elders Climate Action, NorCal and SoCal Chapters
Glendale Environmental Coalition
Greenbank Associates
Habitable Designs
Home Energy Analytics, INC.

Leading Change Consulting and Coaching Marin Conservation League Marin/Sonoma Building Electrification Squad
Mothers Out Front California
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
Natural Resources Defense Council
Negawatt Consulting
Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action
Project Green Home
Public Citizen
Resilient Palisades
San Diego Building Electrification Coalition
San Francisco Baykeeper
Sandiego350
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
SoCal 350 Climate Action
Sonoma County Climate Activist Network
Sustainable San Mateo County
Third ACT SoCal
Transformative Wealth Management LLC

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AB 306

Page 12 ends

Trinity Respecting Earth and Environment (TREE)
U.S. Green Building Council - Los Angeles
Vector Green Power, LLC
Western States Council Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Oppose Unless Amended
Menlo Spark
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
Analysis Prepared by: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: 04_Assembly Housing and Community Development Analysis – March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 12, 2025
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 5, 2025
california legislature—2025–26 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 306
Introduced by Assembly Members Schultz and Rivas
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Haney and Wicks) (Coauthor: Assembly Member Gabriel)
January 23, 2025
An act to amend Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, 18929.1, and 18930 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to building standards, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. legislative counsel
’s digest
AB 306, as amended, Schultz. Building regulations: state building standards.

Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development (department) in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission (commission) within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code (code). Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation.

Existing law requires, among other things, the building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval by the commission, as specified, to be adopted by reference, with certain exceptions. Existing law authorizes any city or county to make changes

Revised 3-19-25—See last page. 97

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: 05_Full Text of AB 306, as amended March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) in those building standards that are published in the code, including to green building standards. Existing law requires the governing body of a city or county, before making modifications or changes to those green building standards, to make an express finding that those modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

This bill would, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, prohibit a city or county from making changes that are applicable to residential units to the above-described building standards unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. By requiring a city or county to take certain actions relating to building standards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, require the commission to reject a modification or change to any building standard, as described above, affecting a residential unit and filed by the governing body of a city or county unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. The bill would also make related findings and declarations.

Existing law requires the commission to receive proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle and to develop regulations, as specified, setting forth the procedures for the 18-month adoption cycle.

This bill, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, would provide that the above-described requirement does not apply to any building standards affecting residential units and would prohibit the commission from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

The California Building Standards Law provides for the adoption of building standards by state agencies by requiring all state agencies that adopt or propose adoption of any building standard to submit the building standard to the commission for approval and adoption.

This bill would prohibit the commission or any other adopting agency from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, 97 AB 306 —
2 —

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: 05_Full Text of AB 306, as amended March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following:
line 3 (a)  The state faces a housing crisis of availability and line 4 affordability, in large part due to a severe shortage of housing. line 5 (b)  Solving the housing crisis therefore requires a multifaceted, line 6 statewide approach, which will include, but is not limited to, any line 7 or some of the following:
line 8 (1)  Encouraging an increase in the overall supply of housing. line 9 (2)  Encouraging the development of housing that is affordable line 10 to households at all income levels.
line 11 (3)  Removing barriers to housing production.
line 12 (4)  Expanding the availability of rental housing. line 13 (c)  Addressing the housing crisis and the severe shortage of line 14 housing is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal line 15 affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the line 16 California Constitution. Therefore, Sections 2, 3, and 4 of this act line 17 amending Sections 17958, 17958.5, and 17958.7 of the Health and line 18 Safety Code apply to all cities, including charter cities. line 19 SEC. 2. Section 17958 of the Health and Safety Code is line 20 amended to read:
line 21 17958. (a)  Except as provided in subdivision (b), and in line 22 Sections 17958.8 and 17958.9, any city or county may make line 23 changes in the provisions adopted pursuant to Section 17922 and line 24 published in the California Building Standards Code or the other line 25 regulations thereafter adopted pursuant to Section 17922 to amend, line 26 add, or repeal ordinances or regulations which impose the same line 27 requirements as are contained in the provisions adopted pursuant line 28 to Section 17922 and published in the California Building 97 — 3 — AB 306

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: 05_Full Text of AB 306, as amended March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) line 1 Standards Code or the other regulations adopted pursuant to Section line 2 17922 or make changes or modifications in those requirements line 3 upon express findings pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7. line 4 If any city or county does not amend, add, or repeal ordinances or line 5 regulations to impose those requirements or make changes or line 6 modifications in those requirements upon express findings, the line 7 provisions published in the California Building Standards Code line 8 or the other regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 17922 line 9 shall be applicable to it and shall become effective 180 days after line 10 publication by the California Building Standards Commission. line 11 Amendments, additions, and deletions to the California Building line 12 Standards Code adopted by a city or county pursuant to Section line 13 17958.7, together with all applicable portions of the California line 14 Building Standards Code, shall become effective 180 days after line 15 publication of the California Building Standards Code by the line 16 California Building Standards Commission.
line 17 (b)  Commencing June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, a line 18 city or county shall not make changes that are applicable to line 19 residential units in the provisions adopted pursuant to Section line 20 17922 and published in the California Building Standards Code line 21 or the other regulations thereafter adopted pursuant to Section line 22 17922 to amend, add, or repeal ordinances or regulations which line 23 impose the same requirements as are contained in the provisions line 24 adopted pursuant to Section 17922 and published in the California line 25 Building Standards Code or the other regulations adopted pursuant line 26 to Section 17922 or make changes or modifications in those line 27 requirements upon express findings pursuant to Sections 17958.5 line 28 and 17958.7, unless one of the following conditions is met:
line 29 (1)  The changes or modifications are substantially equivalent line 30 to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the line 31 governing body of the city or county and were in effect as of line 32 January 1, 2025.
line 33 (2)  The commission deems those changes or modifications line 34 necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. line 35 (3)  The changes or modifications relate to home hardening. line 36 (4)  The building standards relate to home hardening and are line 37 proposed for adoption by a fire protection district pursuant to line 38 Section 13869.7.
line 39 SEC. 3. Section 17958.5 of the Health and Safety Code is line 40 amended to read:
97 AB 306 —
4 —

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: 05_Full Text of AB 306, as amended March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) line 1 17958.5. (a)  Except as provided in subdivision (c) and in line 2 Section 17922.6, in adopting the ordinances or regulations pursuant line 3 to Section 17958, a city or county may make those changes or line 4 modifications in the requirements contained in the provisions line 5 published in the California Building Standards Code and the other line 6 regulations adopted pursuant to Section 17922, including, but not line 7 limited to, green building standards, as it determines, pursuant to line 8 the provisions of Section 17958.7, are reasonably necessary line 9 because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. line 10 (b)  For purposes of this section, a city or county may make line 11 reasonably necessary modifications to the requirements, adopted line 12 pursuant to Section 17922, including, but not limited to, green line 13 building standards, contained in the provisions of the code and line 14 regulations on the basis of local conditions.
line 15 (c)  Commencing June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, a line 16 city or county shall not make a change or modification as described line 17 in subdivision (a) or (b), including to green building standards, line 18 that is applicable to residential units, unless one of the following line 19 conditions is met:
line 20 (1)  The changes or modifications are substantially equivalent line 21 to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the line 22 governing body of the city or county and were in effect as of line 23 January 1, 2025.
line 24 (2)  The commission deems those changes or modifications line 25 necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. line 26 (3)  The changes or modifications relate to home hardening. line 27 (4)  The building standards relate to home hardening and are line 28 proposed for adoption by a local fire prevention district pursuant line 29 to Section 13869.7.
line 30 SEC. 4. Section 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code is line 31 amended to read:
line 32 17958.7. (a)  Except as provided in subdivision (c) and in line 33 Section 17922.6, the governing body of a city or county, before line 34 making any modifications or changes pursuant to Section 17958.5, line 35 shall make an express finding that such modifications or changes line 36 are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or line 37 topographical conditions. Such a finding shall be available as a line 38 public record. A copy of those findings, together with the line 39 modification or change expressly marked and identified to which line 40 each finding refers, shall be filed with the California Building 97 — 5 — AB 306

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: 05_Full Text of AB 306, as amended March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) line 1 Standards Commission. No modification or change shall become line 2 effective or operative for any purpose until the finding and the line 3 modification or change have been filed with the California Building line 4 Standards Commission.
line 5 (b)  The California Building Standards Commission may reject line 6 a modification or change filed by the governing body of a city or line 7 county if no finding was submitted.
line 8 (c)  Commencing June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, line 9 the commission shall reject a modification or change to any line 10 building standard affecting a residential unit and filed by the line 11 governing body of a city or county, unless one of the following line 12 conditions is met:
line 13 (1)  The changes or modifications are substantially equivalent line 14 to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the line 15 governing body of the city or county and were in effect as of line 16 January 1, 2025.
line 17 (2)  The commission deems those changes or modifications line 18 necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. line 19 (3)  The changes or modifications relate to home hardening. line 20 (4)  The building standards relate to home hardening and are line 21 proposed for adoption by a local fire prevention district pursuant line 22 to Section 13869.7.
line 23 SEC. 5. Section 18929.1 of the Health and Safety Code is line 24 amended to read:
line 25 18929.1. (a)  Except as provided in subdivision (c), the line 26 commission shall receive proposed building standards from state line 27 agencies for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle. line 28 The commission shall develop regulations setting forth the line 29 procedures for the 18-month adoption cycle. The regulations shall line 30 ensure all of the following:
line 31 (1)  Adequate public participation in the development of building line 32 standards prior to submittal to the commission for adoption and line 33 approval.
line 34 (2)  Adequate notice, in written form, to the public of the line 35 compiled building standards and their justification. line 36 (3)  Adequate technical review of proposed building standards line 37 and accompanying justification by advisory bodies appointed by line 38 the commission.
line 39 (4)  Adequate time for review of recommendations by advisory line 40 bodies prior to action by the commission.
97 AB 306 —
6 —

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: 05_Full Text of AB 306, as amended March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) line 1 (5)  The procedures shall meet the intent of the Administrati ve
line 2 Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of line 3 Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) and line 4 Section 18930.
line 5 (b)  Where this section is in conflict with other provisions of this line 6 part, the intent of this section shall prevail.
line 7 (c)  Commencing June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, line 8 subdivision (a) shall not apply to any building standards affecting line 9 residential units and proposed building standards affecting line 10 residential units shall not be considered, approved, or adopted by line 11 the commission, unless either any of the following conditions is line 12 met:
line 13 (1)  The commission deems those changes necessary as line 14 emergency standards to protect health and safety. line 15 (2)  The building standards relate to home hardening and are line 16 proposed for adoption by the Office of the State Fire Marshal. line 17 (3)  The building standards are proposed for adoption in relation line 18 to standards researched pursuant to Section 13108.5.2. line 19 (4)  The building standards are proposed for adoption pursuant line 20 to Sections 17921.9, 17921.11, or 18940.7 of this code, or Section line 21 13558 of the Water Code.
line 22 SEC. 6. Section 18930 of the Health and Safety Code is line 23 amended to read:
line 24 18930. (a)  Except as provided in subdivision (g), any building line 25 standard adopted or proposed by state agencies shall be submitted line 26 to, and approved or adopted by, the California Building Standards line 27 Commission prior to codification. Prior to submission to the line 28 commission, building standards shall be adopted in compliance line 29 with the procedures specified in Article 5 (commencing with line 30 Section 11346) of Chapter 3.5 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of line 31 the Government Code. Building standards adopted by state line 32 agencies and submitted to the commission for approval shall be line 33 accompanied by an analysis written by the adopting agency or line 34 state agency that proposes the building standards which shall, to line 35 the satisfaction of the commission, justify the approval thereof in line 36 terms of the following criteria:
line 37 (1)  The proposed building standards do not conflict with, line 38 overlap, or duplicate other building standards. 97 — 7 — AB 306

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: 05_Full Text of AB 306, as amended March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) line 1 (2)  The proposed building standard is within the parameters line 2 established by enabling legislation and is not expressly within the line 3 exclusive jurisdiction of another agency.
line 4 (3)  The public interest requires the adoption of the building line 5 standards. The public interest includes, but is not limited to, health line 6 and safety, resource efficiency, fire safety, seismic safety, building line 7 and building system performance, and consistency with line 8 environmental, public health, and accessibility statutes and line 9 regulations.
line 10 (4)  The proposed building standard is not unreasonable, line 11 arbitrary, unfair, or capricious, in whole or in part. line 12 (5)  The cost to the public is reasonable, based on the overall line 13 benefit to be derived from the building standards. line 14 (6)  The proposed building standard is not unnecessarily line 15 ambiguous or vague, in whole or in part.
line 16 (7)  The applicable national specifications, published standards, line 17 and model codes have been incorporated therein as provided in line 18 this part, where appropriate.
line 19 (A)  If a national specification, published standard, or model line 20 code does not adequately address the goals of the state agency, a line 21 statement defining the inadequacy shall accompany the proposed line 22 building standard when submitted to the commission. line 23 (B)  If there is no national specification, published standard, or line 24 model code that is relevant to the proposed building standard, the line 25 state agency shall prepare a statement informing the commission line 26 and submit that statement with the proposed building standard. line 27 (8)  The format of the proposed building standards is consistent line 28 with that adopted by the commission.
line 29 (9)  The proposed building standard, if it promotes fire and panic line 30 safety, as determined by the State Fire Marshal, has the written line 31 approval of the State Fire Marshal.
line 32 (b)  In reviewing building standards submitted for its approval, line 33 the commission shall consider only the record of the proceedings line 34 of the adopting agency, except as provided in subdivision (b) of line 35 Section 11359 of the Government Code.
line 36 (c)  Where the commission is the adopting agency, it shall line 37 consider the record submitted to, and considered by, the state line 38 agency that proposes the building standards and the record of line 39 public comment that results from the commission’s adoption of line 40 proposed regulations.
97 AB 306 —
8 —

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: 05_Full Text of AB 306, as amended March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) line 1 (d)  (1)  The commission shall gi
ve great weight to the
line 2 determinations and analysis of the adopting agency or state agency line 3 that proposes the building standards on each of the criteria for line 4 approval set forth in subdivision (a). Any factual determinations line 5 of the adopting agency or state agency that proposes the building line 6 standards shall be considered conclusive by the commission unless line 7 the commission specifically finds, and sets forth its reasoning in line 8 writing, that the factual determination is arbitrary and capricious line 9 or substantially unsupported by the evidence considered by the line 10 adopting agency or state agency that proposes the building line 11 standards.
line 12 (2)  Whenever the commission makes a finding, as described in line 13 this subdivision, it shall return the standard to the adopting agency line 14 or state agency that proposes the building standards for a line 15 reexamination of its original determination of the disputed fact. line 16 (e)  Whenever a building standard is principally intended to line 17 protect the public health and safety, its adoption shall not be a line 18 “factual determination” for purposes of subdivision (d). Whenever line 19 a building standard is principally intended to conserve energy or line 20 other natural resources, the commission shall consider or review line 21 the cost to the public or benefit to be derived as a “factual line 22 determination” pursuant to subdivision (d). Whenever a building line 23 standard promotes fire and panic safety, each agency shall, unless line 24 adopted by the State Fire Marshal, submit the building standard line 25 to the State Fire Marshal for prior approval.
line 26 (f)  Whenever the commission finds, pursuant to paragraph (2) line 27 of subdivision (a), that a building standard is adopted by an line 28 adopting agency pursuant to statutes requiring adoption of the line 29 building standard, the commission shall not consider or review line 30 whether the adoption is in the public interest pursuant to paragraph line 31 (3) of subdivision (a).
line 32 (g)  Commencing June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, line 33 proposed building standards affecting residential units shall not line 34 be considered, approved, or adopted by the commission or any line 35 other adopting agency, unless either any of the following conditions line 36 is met:
line 37 (1)  The commission deems those changes necessary as line 38 emergency standards to protect health and safety. line 39 (2)  The building standards relate to home hardening and are line 40 proposed for adoption by the Office of the State Fire Marshal. 97 — 9 — AB 306

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: 05_Full Text of AB 306, as amended March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) line 1 (3) The building standards are proposed for adoption in relation line 2 to standards researched pursuant to Section 13108.5.2. line 3 (4) The building standards are proposed for adoption pursuant line 4 to Sections 17921.9, 17921.11, or 18940.7 of this code, or Section line 5 13558 of the Water Code.
line 6 SEC. 7. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the line 7 immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within line 8 the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall line 9 go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
line 10 In order to avert economic and social harm as a result of natural line 11 disasters and the severe lack of affordable housing in the state, it line 12 is necessary for this act to take effect immediately. line 13
line 14
REVISIONS: line 15
Heading—Line 3. line 16
line 17
O
97 AB 306 — 10 —

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: 05_Full Text of AB 306, as amended March 12, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) Measure:

Lead Authors:

Principal Coauthors:

Coauthors:

Topic:
31st Day in Print:

Title:

House Location:

Last Amended Date:

Voting Committee Location:

Committee Action Date:

Committee Motion:

Committee Vote Result:

AB-306 Building regulations: state building standards. (2025-2026) Bill Status
AB-306
Schultz (A) , Rivas (A)
Haney (A) , Wicks (A)
Gabriel (A)
Building regulations: state building standards.
02/23/25
An act to amend Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, 18929.1, and 18930 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to building standards, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.

Senate
03/12/25
Asm Appropriations
03/19/25
Do pass.
(PASS) »» Ayes: 14; Noes: 0; Abstain: 1;
Type of Measure
Active Bill - Pending Referral
Two Thirds Vote Required
Non-Appropriation
Fiscal Committee
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Urgency
Non-Tax levy
Last 5 History Actions
Date Action
04/02/25 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. 04/01/25 Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 71. Noes 0.). 03/20/25 Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
03/19/25 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (March 19). 03/19/25 Coauthors revised.

Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Senate
Assembly 1st Cmt 2nd 3rd Pass
1st

16.D.f
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: 06_Status of AB 306, as of April 17, 2025 (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Rev. Jim Conn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 12:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; City Council general box; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Climate Action
Subject: Re: 4-22 Meeting Item 16 D
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Council Members...

Please pay careful attention to the matters raised regarding this item.

Thank you.

JIM
Rev. Jim Conn
230 Pacific St #108
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310/392-5056
Associations:

CLUE - A Founding Member: www.cluejustice.org
Climate Action Santa Monica - Advisory Board
Asset Based Community Development: www.abcdinstitute.org/ United Methodist Minister - Retired: www.calpacUMC.org
Former Council Member and Mayor of Santa Monica
On Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 09:30:38 AM PDT, Climate Action <[email protected]> wrote:

Re: Item 16D
Dear Council Members,
On behalf of Climate Action Santa Monica (CASM), we are writing to urge you to oppose AB 306, Building regulations:
state building standards, unless it is amended. Please note that this proposed legislation, in its current form, is opposed by numerous organizations and jurisdictions, including West Hollywood, NRDC, RMI, Resilient Palisades, CA Fire Prevention Officers Assoc. and others.

Even with the suggested amendments (below), we consider this to be a flawed bill. It is our strong belief that allowing exemptions for climate, energy and fire-hardening code upgrades would be a setback and missed opportunity for preparing new construction for the climate-caused challenges of the future. It is not even clear that the exemptions proposed would make a meaningful contribution to speeding up and reducing the cost of new housing.

Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) 2 Additionally, the bill appears to prohibit the City from re-adopting the Energy Performance reach code we adopted in Sept 2024. In its current form, it appears to eliminate the Building Performance Standards program to gradually reduce emissions we have been working on for years.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Council recommend amending the bill as follows:

Section 4, 17958.7
“(c) Commencing June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, the commission shall reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a new residential unit and filed by the governing body of a city or county, unless one of the following conditions is met:”
We further suggest that the bill include the following provisions:

Allow for the legislature or local jurisdictions to pass building code modifications, pilot programs and studies that make existing reach codes less onerous and either meet (through alternative compliance) and/or match existing state codes.

Allow new building code measures to be implemented as an alternative compliance option for developers if said codes decrease square footage cost for building or significantly reduce carbon emissions.

We appreciate your consideration of our recommendations.

Respectfully,
Laurene von Klan
Executive Director and Co-chair
Climate Action Santa Monica
Kent Strumpell
Co-chair
Climate Action Santa Monica
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Scott Morris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Subject: OPPOSE: Item 16D on Agenda April 22, 2025 Regarding AB 306 Attachments: OPPOSE_ Item 16D on April 22, 2025 Agenda.pdf

EXTERNAL
Hands Off Local Government Control
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Councilmembers,
As a Santa Monica resident, I am writing to express my strong opposition to Assembly Bill 306. I am deeply concerned about this bill’s implications for our city and urge you to stand against it.

First and foremost, AB 306 is a clear overreach into local governance. It strips away the power of cities like Santa Monica to shape their own building and safety codes—codes that directly reflect the needs, values, and priorities of our unique community. I'm surprised any city councilmember would support a measure that voluntarily relinquishes some of the City’s authority to Sacramento. Why vote to take power away from yourselves and, more importantly, from your constituents? This bill would severely limit our city’s ability to enact residential codes that address critical local concerns— whether it’s regulating building height and square footage, enforcing seismic retrofits, promoting accessibility beyond the federal ADA, incentivizing affordable housing, preserving historic structures, or requiring superior materials and energy-efficient, all-electric construction.

All-electric homes, for instance, don’t just align with California’s climate goals—they also save time and money during construction by eliminating the need for gas plumbing. They further reduce insurance premiums by removing gas combustion, a common fire hazard. These are smart, cost-effective improvements that should remain in the hands of local governments to decide.

Second, California already has a robust, well-established process in place to evaluate the costeffectiveness of new building standards. Under Government Code Section 11346.2(b)(5)(B)(i) and Health and Safety Code Section 18930(a)(5), any proposed changes must undergo thorough analysis to weigh upfront costs against long-term benefits.

A case in point: the 2025 California Energy Code, set to take effect in January 2026, is projected to save Californians over $4.8 billion in energy costs (Source: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2024-09/energy-commissionadopts-updated-building-standards-expanding-requirements-heat). That’s real savings directly attributable to the very kind of proactive code-making that AB 306 would hinder.

Third, AB 306 would obstruct or even prevent crucial safety, affordability, and innovation-driven updates. While proponents argue that builders could still go “above code,” this claim is misleading. If a method or technology—like modern electric load calculations—is not explicitly allowed under existing code, it cannot be Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) 2 adopted without special “emergency” approval under AB 306. That’s a high barrier that could delay or block solutions that are already proving their value.

Consider just a few real-world consequences:
 Electric load updates could help avoid unnecessary service upgrades costing $2,500–$30,000 per home.
 Energy code alignment with other codes could improve clarity and efficiency but would be stalled.  Access to FEMA funding post-disaster could be at risk if national codes can’t be adopted in a timely fashion.
 Safety updates for new technology—like battery storage, EV charging, and load management—could fall behind national standards, putting public safety in jeopardy.

In sum, AB 306 is not only unnecessary—it is actively harmful to good governance, cost-effective building, public safety, and climate resilience. Santa Monica has long been a leader in forward-thinking urban policy, and we should not allow that leadership to be stripped away.

I urge you to protect our city’s right to self-determination. Please oppose AB 306.

Sincerely,
Scott Morris
Santa Monica Resident
--
Scott Morris
818-854-2663
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) Hands Off Local Government Control
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Councilmembers,
As a Santa Monica resident, I am writing to express my strong opposition to Assembly Bill 306. I am deeply concerned about this bill’s implications for our city and urge you to stand against it.

First and foremost, AB 306 is a clear overreach into local governance. It strips away the power of cities like Santa Monica to shape their own building and safety codes—codes that directly reflect the needs, values, and priorities of our unique community. I'm surprised any city councilmember would support a measure that voluntarily relinquishes some of the City’s authority to Sacramento. Why vote to take power away from yourselves and, more importantly, from your constituents?
This bill would severely limit our city’s ability to enact residential codes that address critical local concerns—whether it’s regulating building height and square footage, enforcing seismic retrofits, promoting accessibility beyond the federal ADA, incentivizing affordable housing, preserving historic structures, or requiring superior materials and energy-efficient, all-electric construction.

Second, California already has a robust, well-established process in place to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new building standards. Under Government Code Section 11346.2(b)(5)(B)(i) and Health and Safety Code Section 18930(a)(5), any proposed changes must undergo thorough analysis to weigh upfront costs against long-term benefits.

A case in point: the 2025 California Energy Code, set to take effect in January 2026, is projected to save Californians over $4.8 billion in energy costs (Source:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2024-09/energy-commission-adopts-updated-building-standards-expandi ng-requirements-heat). That’s real savings directly attributable to the very kind of proactive code-making that AB 306 would hinder.

Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) Consider just a few real-world consequences:
● Electric load updates could help avoid unnecessary service upgrades costing $2,500–$30,000 per home.
● Energy code alignment with other codes could improve clarity and efficiency but would be stalled.
● Access to FEMA funding post-disaster could be at risk if national codes can’t be adopted in a timely fashion.
● Safety updates for new technology—like battery storage, EV charging, and load management—could fall behind national standards, putting public safety in jeopardy.

I urge you to protect our city’s right to self-determination. Please oppose AB 306.

Sincerely,
Scott Morris
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) 3 David Yakobson
From: Climate Action <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 9:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; City Council general box; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Subject: 4-22 Meeting Item 16 D

EXTERNAL
Re: Item 16D
Dear Council Members,
On behalf of Climate Action Santa Monica (CASM), we are writing to urge you to oppose AB 306, Building regulations: state building standards, unless it is amended. Please note that this proposed legislation, in its current form, is opposed by numerous organizations and jurisdictions, including West Hollywood, NRDC, RMI, Resilient Palisades, CA Fire Prevention Officers Assoc. and others.

Additionally, the bill appears to prohibit the City from re-adopting the Energy Performance reach code we adopted in Sept 2024. In its current form, it appears to eliminate the Building Performance Standards program to gradually reduce emissions we have been working on for years.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Council recommend amending the bill as follows:

Section 4, 17958.7
“(c) Commencing June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, the commission shall reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a new residential unit and filed by the governing body of a city or county, unless one of the following conditions is met:”
We further suggest that the bill include the following provisions:

Allow new building code measures to be implemented as an alternative compliance option for developers if said codes decrease square footage cost for building or significantly reduce carbon emissions.

We appreciate your consideration of our recommendations.

Respectfully,
Laurene von Klan
Executive Director and Co-chair
Climate Action Santa Monica
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) 4 Kent Strumpell
Co-chair
Climate Action Santa Monica
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) 5 David Yakobson
From: Cris Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 8:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda Item 16-D, Oppose AB 306

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council Members:

I write to urge you to modify Agenda Item 16-D and direct City Staff to oppose AB 306. We cannot go backwards by putting a moratorium on new building codes, specifically reach codes, that are meant to mitigate further GHG emissions and to adapt to the standards that we need to confront the climate crisis. A moratorium on reach codes locks-in the rebuilding after the catastrophic Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire, or any other natural disaster, to building standards that have typically generated the GHG emissions that had produced the climate conditions for the fires in the first place.

Relaxing reach codes would not stave off climate impacts. Ironically, any moratorium puts rebuilding in a worse position and a more costly situation.

Furthermore, why are we giving up our local control? Santa Monica needs to decide for its residents and use its influence to promote what it will take to rebuild responsibly and to transition to building for a livable climate with electrification, cleanrenewable energy and climate resilient infrastructure. Our city’s sustainability leadership calls for us to retain our local control and local power to govern so that we can meet our urgent climate goals.

AB 306, perhaps well-meaning, is poorly considered. It would damage any momentum that we have to progress to build in a climate resilient manner. I trust that Council, especially on today, the 55th anniversary of Earth Day, will adjust Item 16-D and instruct Staff to reject AB 306.

With sincere support,
Cris Gutierrez
Santa Monica Resident
Clean Power Alliance Community Advisor, Westside

Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Tracey Alexander <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 10:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Support Letter for SB79

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
The City of Santa Monica should take a strong position in support of SB79. The bill creates a set of tiers for legalizing new homes near transit sites zoned for residential, mixed use, commercial or light industrial with buildings up to seven stories allowed in areas closest to transit.

Transit-oriented housing is key to fixing Santa Monica’s housing shortage. Simply put, building more housing near transit reduces traffic congestion and pollution. It could also be an economic engine, transforming blighted intersections into thriving, walkable communities.

Let’s envision how SB79 could play out in three locations in Santa Monica:
17th Street near the SMC Metro Station

BUILDING COMMUNITY
Imagine transforming the adjacent light industrial area into a safe promenade with ground floor retail, coffee shops and bookstores - accentuated by market rate and affordable housing for new renters, elderly folks, local teachers, city workers and young families.

Ocean Park & Lincoln

INCREASING ACCESS AND USE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS IS CRUCIAL TO REDUCING CAR USE AND CLIMATE

POLLUTION
Imagine Lincoln and Ocean Park is no longer a dangerous intersection. Residents of new transit-oriented housing won’t need a car because they can use the expanded BIG BLUE BUS ONLY LANE to get to LAX, or the SM Metro line which will transport them to their jobs in Culver City, Westwood or Downtown. Residents feel safe walking along the retail corridor that springs up on the ground floors of the new mixed-use housing developments. A vibrant community is born out of the rubble of a dank industrial corridor.

Wilshire & 20th Street

ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION OF SANTA MONICA
Imagine more housing, restaurants and retail adjacent to the Wilshire Blvd bus line, creating a thriving business environment and encouraging residents to feel safe at night while they happily mingle with their neighbors.

SB79 will create a safer, more sustainable, equitable community. Now is the moment to communicate with State Senator Ben Allen and State Assemblymember Rick Zbur in support of a bill that could dramatically enhance the lives of the residents of Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Tracey Alexander
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) 2 Housing Advocate
Abundant Housing LA and Santa Monica Forward
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz)) 3 David Yakobson
From: Kim Landry <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 6:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Itemc 16D - AB306

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
As a Santa Monica resident for almost 5 years, I urge you to change the language in agenda item 16D on AB 306 from Support if Amended to Oppose Unless Amended. This bill is in conflict with the City's sustainability goals, which have a huge focus on building decarbonization. Santa Monica has a long-standing commitment to sustainable building practice. Supporting this bill sends the wrong message from our City. I recognize the City's intent to support efforts to build housing, but this bill would not meaningfully address challenges to housing production.

California’s high housing costs are largely attributable to decades of stagnating development, restrictive zoning practices, materials, high land costs, high impact fees, and complex financing structures. These factors contribute to the high cost of new development, and will not be resolved by eliminating code advancements, especially for existing buildings. On the other hand, state and local building codes are responsible for supporting highly-resilient efficient buildings that provide numerous cost and quality of life benefits to Californians.

As drafted, AB 306 prohibits the work the state building code and local reach codes do to enable retrofits that stabilize our electrical grid, reduce emissions, clean our air, enhance wildfire and smoke protection, and provide vulnerable populations with access to cooling during extreme heat events.

For these reasons, I urge you to send a letter to the authors that opposes the bill unless amended, as the City of West Hollywood and many other cities and organizations have suggested.

Thank you for you time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Kim
Kimberly Landry
Cell- 207-692-3363
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025

16.D.g
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Written Comments (7048 : 16.D. Zernitskay/Zwick Item: Support AB 306 (Shultz))

Santa Monica City CouncilApril 22, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
April 22, 2025