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
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
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
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
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 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.
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 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.
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
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
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
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.
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.
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
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
4 Kent Strumpell
Co-chair
Climate Action Santa Monica
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
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
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
2 Housing Advocate
Abundant Housing LA and Santa Monica Forward
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
Item 16-D
April 22, 2025
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