Agenda packet, first session — Santa Monica City Council, May 13, 2025 (part 4 of 8)

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing land use
Metrolink
Blue Line
Light Rail
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Qualifying parcels
240 acres
of commercial land
upzoned
Up to
21K
new housing units
Metrolink
Blue Line
Light Rail
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + 7 David Yakobson
From: Mary Gwynn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building).

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Mary Gwynn
319 25th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Sent from my iPad
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Janet Heinle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:07 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Just STOP

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Janet Heinle
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: James Janda <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
James Janda
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Paula Mayerson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Items 4J & 10A & 4K

EXTERNAL
As long time residents of Santa Monica we oppose resolutions 10A, 4J and 4K on the agenda for this week's city council meeting. Resolution 10A will increase crime and noise in the already unsafe and over crowded Promenade. Item 4J allows developers to over build large, expensive, tall structures without being subject to the rules ordinary citizens must obey, and Item 4K silences dissent from ordinary citizens who are already frustrated by not having their voices heard. The city council should represent the wishes of their residents. Paula Mayerson and Lawrence Karr 445 15th Street, Santa Monica Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: M Wickline <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Marcy Hardart
Subject: OPPOSE Items 4J, 4K, and 10A

EXTERNAL
This is insanity--to allow developers to build these large buildings without formal review or environmental impact studies. It is wrongheaded and smells of corruption.

And then, to limit our ability to speak and comment on these changes at city meetings? What is happening to Santa Monica?
And you also want to allow day drinking in public in the 1200 block of the promenade!? It would be one thing to allow cafe tables assigned to licensed restaurants to serve beverages within 20 feet of the bistro or bar. But turning the whole block into a party zone? For some kind of daily 8 am frat party? Were you raving drunk when you put this item up for review? 8am to 2 am drinking in a public space. I at least thank you for allowing nearby residents some quiet time to recover for 6 hours between the 2 and 8 am block parties. Maybe some part of you does still care about residents! PLEASE do not let these outrages to go through.

Matt Wickline
( resident since 1990 )

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Suzanne Hunt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE 4J, OPPOSE 4K, OPPOSE 10A, OPPOSE 12A

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am resident of the Northeast Neighborhood. Please stop the overbuilding, we cannot get from point A to point B in this city any more in any reasonable time frame. Since the fires, all of the PCH traffic is diverted through our town that used to go north through PCH. This city is becoming unlivable. We have small children, and just getting them home from school can take 20-30 minutes. They have practices in our city, that takes 45 minutes round trip just to cross through the city.

Focus on our residents. Stop putting these builders profits ahead of all of those who live here.

OPPOSE 4J
Stop the overbuilding. We do not need to weigh in on this bill. Leave our city alone, you are ruining it.

OPPOSE 4K -
The public deserves to have a voice in their city.

OPPOSE 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone.

If you stopped the free needle exchange program, many of these businesses problems would be solved. People are afraid to dine in our city with the mental health crisis that we have with many of our homeless. Help get the homeless to somewhere they can be safe and live.

OPPOSE 12A - End Owner Occupancy Requirement
STOP THE OVERBUILDING. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Thank you
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 Suzanne
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Daniel Galamba
Subject: City Council Meeting on May 13, 2025: Please oppose items 4J, 12A, 10A and 4K

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must urge you to oppose items 4J, 12A, 10A and 4K on the May 13, 2025 calendar. 1) Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE SB79 would allow 7-story market rate apartment towers in almost all of Santa Monica without offering any affordable housing.
2) Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 - OPPOSE The owner occupancy requirement in SB9 was meant to encourage multi-generational housing. Removing it will open up neighborhoods to land speculators.
3) Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone – OPPOSE This ordinance would allow open alcohol consumption on The Promenade in the 1200 block (Wilshire end) from 8am to 2am, 7 days a week. How will this do anything other than increase noise, public drunkenness, and mayhem, costing taxpayers more money for security and sanitation? This will also scare away non-alcohol users to the Promenade and we need these people to revitalize the Promenade. 4) Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE
This Agenda Item seeks to limit comments from the public to 2 minutes per public input section, rather than 2 minutes on each agenda item. It will automatically reduce public comment to 1 minute each if 25 or more people sign up to speak. It also eliminates the ability to donate time to a single speaker, which is helpful when there is someone who best represents a group and has a more complicated presentation that requires more than 2 minutes.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Laura M. Gallant <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: Regarding upcoming votes on development issues

EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
I understand you are considering the following items in an upcoming meeting:
* Removing Owner Occupancy Requirement for single-family lot splits * Eliminating public input on commercial development
* Upzoning of 2644 30th St (30th/Ocean Park Blvd)
* Approving SB79
* Changing the length of public input at Council meetings I am strongly opposed to the actions above and ask you to take the residents' opinions into consideration ahead of your vote. These actions run highly counter to the views of residents of Sunset Park and require meaningful discussion ahead of any changes.

Thank you for your consideration.

Laura Gallant
Resident
2225 26th St, Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: T GROSSMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: [email protected]; zinajosephs; [email protected] Subject: Say no! Re council agenda items for May 13

EXTERNAL
Hello, I'm writing to voice my strong opposition to the following items on your agenda tonight and asking you to vote no to:

Owner Occupancy Requirement Removal
Elimination of public input on commercial development
Changing the length of public input and abolishing time donation at Council Mtgs Changing zoning (upzoning) of 30th Street/Ocean Park parcel SB78 housing bill
There is a public perception the council is encouraging the destruction of our neighborhoods in favor of overdevelopment. What will you do to demonstrate your support of our neighborhoods, residents and livable communities? Say no to the five items listed above.

District elections are coming and for some of us, not soon enough. Residents will still be here, fighting for our environment and the communities that make Santa Monica vibrant and a place to truly call home.

Thank you,
Tina Grossman
Resident of Sunset Park since 1992
Resident of Santa Monica since 1979
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Chris Rowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Friends of Sunset Park Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

Construction NOISE is always an issue, but the construction process for large buildings is way too intense for all the retired folks around here. I live on 22nd St in Sunset Park, and there is currently a new house being built with a basement that is so loud and heavy that my parents have had to seek refuge each day elsewhere as giant beams and cranes swing over their heads.

Imagine how bad it would be for a 7-story, steel-framed behemoth! They'd probably have to dig 30-40 feet deep into the sandy soil to place the foundation, which causes settling and shaking to all the neighboring lots.

Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
And you know they'll just end up being units that are too expensive for my kids; they'll just be occupied by out of town people who need a part time apartment.

Thank you,
Chris Rowe
2442 22nd St
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Solomon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:24 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for SB 79

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
I am writing to urge the City of Santa Monica to formally voice its support for Senate Bill 79, a critical measure to advance housing production and affordability across our region.

Last month, West Hollywood voted to support SB 79, recognizing the role cities must play in addressing California’s housing crisis. As neighbors in a deeply interconnected housing market, we must work together and align our policies to meet the challenge.

No one city can solve the crisis alone; coordinated action across Westside jurisdictions is essential. We must commit to building up, not out, and to unlocking the density required to stabilize housing costs and offer future generations a path to live here.

I’m sure you’re receiving many emotionally charged emails about housing. These are challenging conversations, but I appreciate your thoughtful engagement. Your decisions now will shape the region’s future. Future generations depend on us to build a better one.

My two year old daughter might want to live in Santa Monica one day. And your kid might want to move to Weho. I hope that we've collectively built room for all of them. The generation before us failed to plan for us. Let's not make the same mistake for our children.

Santa Monica has long been a leader in progressive planning. By endorsing SB 79, you can help lead a broader coalition of cities toward real solutions.

Thank you for your service and consideration.

Sincerely,
Andrew Solomon
West Hollywood Planning Commissioner
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Margaret Bach <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 4J -- PLEASE OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Council,
I urge your opposition to a letter of support on SB 79. We, the residents of Santa Monica who value local control, vigorously oppose any measures that will remove what remains of our ability to shape the change and evolution of our built environment. SB 79 is a giveaway to developers and will negatively impact the quality of life in Santa Monica.

Please take the lead from our own State Senator, Ben Allen, and OPPOSE SB 79.

Sincerely,
Margaret Bach
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 David Yakobson
From: Abby Adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Abby and Patrick Adams
475 17th Street
SM. 90402
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 5 David Yakobson
From: Sandy King <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:06 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Sandra King
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 6 David Yakobson
From: Karrie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Karrie Dvorchak
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 7 David Yakobson
From: Linda V <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 4J -OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
As a SM citizen, I am strongly opposed to the SM Council directing SM City Manager to draft a letter expressing the City's support of SB 79. SB79 would allow 7-story market rate apartment towers in a designated zone in Santa Monica without offering any affordable housing. With the concern to provide more housing, we need to focus on affordable housing, versus market-rate only, together other SM goals. This SB 79 is not the right approach for many reasons.

Linda Velonis
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 8 David Yakobson
From: Carol Eisman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:51 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose SB79 destructive housing bill

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 9 Carol Eisman
Long-time Mid-Wilshire SM resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 10 David Yakobson
From: Anne Connor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am writing to oppose the latest proposal to expand development in Santa Monica. As the owner of residential units under rent control, and after living for 37 years in a city that gives lip-service to affordable housing I am amazed that you are even considering proposals which allow market level housing in residential areas. And, of course, with no provision for affordable units in these up to 7 story buildings? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING???? This, if passed, would be the death of Santa Monica as a desirable living community for families. Seniors have already been priced out. Young people who make reasonable salaries have no prayer of buying a house in Santa Monica and are moving away. What you have now is short-term residents who come and go due to the high rents.

Market rates for a one bedroom apartment are $2,000-3,000 a month at this point. In our rent controlled apartment building a three bedroom rents for less than that. This is unfair to long-term owners and to anyone who wants to enjoy living in a residential area. 7 story buildings are a lot on busy streets as we are finding on Lincoln and Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvds. They are too much in residential areas.

This motion should be opposed and as a council you really need to consider the quality of life of residents, because it is being slowly destroyed by traffic, over-development and the loss of any middle-class families who are all moving away so the rich can buy and tear down our neighborhoods to build huge mansions. The developers are happy. Maybe that is what you want.

Anne Connor and Jeff Rankin
1126 23rd St. Apt 3.

Santa Monica, CA 90403
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 11 David Yakobson
From: Leslie Butchko <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE Leslie Butchko
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 12 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4J - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Insane-a-Monica Council,
NO
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 13 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Armine Chaparyan
Subject: Item #4.J - SB 79 - May 13, 2025

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please do NOT send a letter of support for SB 79.

This one size fits all housing bill has been identified as one of the worst! SB 79 has no affordability requirement! As Santa Monica allows for more and more market-rate housing, we are making it more and more expensive to live in Santa Monica.

You have been elected to the City Council to care for and protect our local city. Please prioritize responsible planning and land use to ensure our place on the coast is not turned into Manhattan! Please send a letter that OPPOSES SB 79.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 14 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 – OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I oppose Agenda Item 4J.

Thank you for considering my opinion for Santa Monica.

John Dahl
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 15 David Yakobson
From: Christie Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4-J SB79

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica.

This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Thank you for your consideration.

Christie Savage
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 16 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:35 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: SB79-OPP0SE

EXTERNAL
Do not saddle our already overloaded Santa Monica building regulations with this onerous attempt by Sacramento to take over control.

Harriet P Epstein
Santa Monica taxpayer
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 17 David Yakobson
From: Myles Simmons <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:30 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

My main concern is this: The demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden.

The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher buildings).

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica.

Many thanks,
--
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 18 Myles Simmons
[email protected]
C: 216.338.3037
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 19 David Yakobson
From: Darko Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Darko Suvak
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 20 David Yakobson
From: Anita <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:15 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Anita Szafran
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Penny Haberman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: TUESDAY TOWN HALL MEETING

EXTERNAL
OPPOSE: 1)ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone.

OPPOSE: 2)ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79
Penny Haberman
Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Josephine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems

EXTERNAL
Hi to all the city council people,
I want to express my strong opposition to several of the agenda to be discussed at your meeting on may 13, 2025, namely:

The item 4J for SB 9, the item 12A for SB 9, and the item 4K concerning the public input.

My hope is that the decisions made by the city council will be made in the interest of the residents.

Thank you for your attention
Josephine Bakis
2808 Washington Avenue
Santa Monic
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete
Subject: AGENDA ITEMS 4J/12A 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

Please oppose items 4J and 12A. Santa Monica and its residents deserve to have local control of development.

Getting rid of owner occupancy will mean that developers will buy buildings kick out the tenants and build more unaffordable housing.

Developers are funded by wealthy foreigners, who are happy to park their money in the US We don’t need Wilshire, Santa Monica, Lincoln, 17th Street, 20th Street walled in 8 story empty buildings.

Please think about people who can’t afford to live in luxury rentals.

With great sadness,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Lee Rosenbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Opposition to several agenda items for May 13 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

Please note that, as a longtime Santa Monica resident, I disapprove of three items on your agenda for your meeting tomorrow:

1. Item 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone. This looks like a Hail, Mary to save the Promenade.

It’s a terrible idea. It encourages open drinking for 18 hours a day in an area that most residents have come to shun due to the substantial presence of vagrants who mostly appear to have serious addiction or mental health issues. As I said, this is a terrible idea.

2. Item 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79. Why support a give-away to developers with no requirement that they provide affordable housing? Another terrible idea.

3. Item 4K - Change in Public Input Rules. At a time when we are witnessing attacks on public citizens who dare to speak out in opposition to government at all levels, limiting the ability of the public to speak at Council meetings is a retrograde attack on the democratic process. Another terrible idea.

I sincerely hope that you have the good sense to reject all three of these proposals.

Lee Rosenbaum
211 Marguerita Avenue
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: I OPPOSE three agenda items on Tues 5-13-25 Meeting: 1) ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone; 2) ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79; and 3) ITEM 4K - Change in Public Input Rules

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council Members,
I strongly oppose three agenda items on Tuesday, 5-13-25 MeeƟng: 1) ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone; 2) ITEM 4J - LeƩer of Support on SB 79; and 3) ITEM 4K - Change in Public Input Rules.

Agenda ITEM 10A is a terrible idea and I believe it will cause many problems and safety issues on the Promenade and will not encourage more people to visit the Promenade. I want the Promenade to be a safe place and this will not help with that. I am strongly against ITEM 4J as I oppose taller structures in general and do not like that affordable housing would not be included. I oppose ITEM 4K as it’s a bad idea to limit public comment—it’s important to get adequate public feedback that’s not limited to such a short Ɵme.

Thank you,
Howard Eliash
LongƟme Resident of Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Hi

EXTERNAL
Hello Counsel Members, Item 4J, and 4k as a member of the city - I encourage you all to OPPOSE these two items - oppose high rise and population density, and the public needs adequate time to express their view before he counsel.

Mitchell Lachamn
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Nancy HR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
To the city of Santa Monica council:

I, Nancy Hochman Ross, who live at 616 20th St., Santa Monica 90402, oppose items 4J, 12A and 4K.

Thank you,
Nancy
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Michele Garber <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: SM Council Meeting 5/13/25, OPPOSE AGENDA ITEMS 4J, 12A, 4K

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
It has come to my attention that on Tuesday, May 13, you will be voting on several issues that if passed will adversely affect the members of our community. I therefore want to respectively submit my firm opposition to these harmful policies. If approved, they will only benefit outside interests at the severe detriment of Santa Monica residents and further damage our already fragile quality of life.

As a nearly 40 year resident of Santa Monica, I have witnessed first-hand the slow degradation of our once affordable, safe and peaceful bedroom community. Our bucolic neighborhoods are now rife with over-development, congestion, crime, and unaffordability. It’s heart-breaking.

Allowing these measures to pass will exacerbate our already complex issues. When each of you were elected to your seat, the members of this community instilled our trust in you to fairly and properly represent us. Our community needs you to do right by us. I implore you to listen to your constituents and please vote no on the measures listed below.

Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 – OPPOSE Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 – OPPOSE Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules – OPPOSE
As a further comment on SB79 and the possibility that 7-story apartment buildings could ostensibly be built throughout Santa Monica, including in many neighborhoods once zoned for single family homes, may I remind you that we are neither Chicago nor Manhattan. Not only do we not have the infrastructure to handle this density, but we are located in a perilous and severe seismic activity zone. We are not meant to have high-rise apartments throughout our residential neighborhoods. There is absolutely no amount of profit worth destroying all that makes Santa Monica special…and I voice this passionate opposition whilst also being a diehard free-market capitalist. If approved, the measures you are considering will surely cause irreparable harm to our beloved city. Please do not approve these measures.

Sincerely,
Michele Garber
1128 Princeton St.

SM 90403
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Linda Karr O'Connor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: Items 12:A.2, 4-J, 4-K: Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

It’s gotten difficult to find a quiet, safe place in Santa Monica. I moved here from San Francisco in 1983 after a 4 story building went up next door to me, blocking all my light and air. That was the year the pier blew down. When it was rebuilt, the pier was a lovely place to walk and listen to the ocean. The only loud section was the arcade near the rides.

Now, there isn’t a single spot on the pier where you can have a conversation, free of over-amplified music and proselytizing. Same with the Promenade. After years of construction, it became a wonderful place where I felt safe walking at night alone or with my daughter. I’d go to a movie and then to the Midnight Special bookstore. There were buskers, but they didn’t have amplifiers. Now not only is it over-amplified but desolate. Is turning it into Pinnocchio’s Pleasure Island for drinkers really the best we can imagine for our city?

What we are left with is our homes. After decades of apartment living, where I had to listen to the conversations and music of other people and keep my own music down, we bought our one and only home in Sunset Park. It was very important to us that it was zoned R-1. I prize the ability, even though I live on a busy street, to go in my backyard and not have neighbors looking down into my yard. I value the light in my home that is not blocked by tall buildings next door. Yes, I had to endure my neighbor turning his house into an AirBnB hotel, but at least he was there when things got out of hand.

I oppose: the elimination of the “Owner Occupancy Requirement” for lot splits I oppose: SB79
I oppose: changing the length of public input. People need sufficient time to express complex ideas including time donation.

Thank you.

Linda Karr O’Connor
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 David Yakobson
From: Jason Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE ITEMS 10A, 4J, 4K

EXTERNAL
Please oppose -
Item 10A - This is a horrible proposal and will do nothing but create more chaos on the promenade thanks to an already out of control homeless crisis.

Item 4J - Please oppose this giveaway to developers.

Item 4k - Please oppose the change in public input rules. We deserve the right to show up to meetings and provide our comments, this should not be shortened, and the City Council works for the residents of Santa Monica, and please respect that.

Thank you
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Nancy HR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
To the city of Santa Monica council:

I, Nancy Hochman Ross, who live at 616 20th St., Santa Monica 90402, oppose items 4J, 12A and 4K.

Thank you,
Nancy
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Michele Garber <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: SM Council Meeting 5/13/25, OPPOSE AGENDA ITEMS 4J, 12A, 4K

Sincerely,
Michele Garber
1128 Princeton St.

SM 90403
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Linda Karr O'Connor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: Items 12:A.2, 4-J, 4-K: Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

Thank you.

Linda Karr O’Connor
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 David Yakobson
From: Jason Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE ITEMS 10A, 4J, 4K

EXTERNAL
Please oppose -
Item 10A - This is a horrible proposal and will do nothing but create more chaos on the promenade thanks to an already out of control homeless crisis.

Item 4J - Please oppose this giveaway to developers.

Thank you
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: girltunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Items: 4J, 12A, 10A, and 4K

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I stand with Northeast Neighbors in OPPOSING Agenda Items 4J, 12A, 10A and 4K.

When are you going to actually represent the residents? We don't want a high rise, shadowy. overdeveloped urban jungle with no open space and scarce resources. And your gag rule in Item 4K exemplifies your hostility to Santa Monicans.

Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Rose Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda items 4J, 12A, 10A,4K meeting 5/13/25 I OPPOSE these items

EXTERNAL
I oppose the agenda items as noted in subject line.

Rose Nelson
35 year Santa Monica resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 4j - 12a - 10a - 4k

EXTERNAL
Hello
I’m writing you today to express my opposition of the following items - 4j - 12a - 10a - 4k.

I am a lifelong Santa Monica resident, born and raised attending Santa Monica schools. Roosevelt, Lincoln, samo high and crossroads.

My grandparents moved to Santa Monica in the 50s - you’d be hard pressed to find a resident with deeper roots here than myself.

I love this city very much.

With that I ask you to please oppose these actions items.

Public drinking all day long on the promenade does not help us restore what was once the envy of the country for family entertainment.

Nor does building 7 story apartments buildings in our beautiful residential neighborhoods.

Thank you
Jared Freedman
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 David Yakobson
From: Carol Dickinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 0PP0SE Items 12A, 4J, 4K & 10A at City Council Meeting 5/13/25

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I oppose Item 12A and its 5 development proposals that would ruin our city forever. Items 4J and 4K are included in12A along with the up-zoning of 1331 Wilshire and 2644 30th Street, the elimination of public input on commercial developments and the end to owner occupancy requirements for single-family lot splits.

SB 79 is a terrible bill that will ruin single-family and small multi-family neighborhoods. There are no requirements in the bill for affordable housing, public input or environmental impact studies. The developers will have a feeding frenzy! Residents are not in favor of SB 79 Developers are.

Item 10A is an absolute joke! Only alcoholics drink at 8:00 in the morning. The result will be public drunkenness, more criminal acts and chaos. At present, we do not have enough police officers in our neighborhoods. With public alcohol consumption going on between 8:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M., we will have even less officers available.

I doubt that the atmosphere will be very inviting for families. In reality, more tourists will be attracted to the Promenade if it’s clean and safe and not overrun with homeless people instead of shoppers.

Lastly, what is the point of Item 4K besides stifling public comments? You would think that these new time limits were proposed by the MAGA crew and Trump. Please represent your constituents and vote NO on items 12A, 4J, 10A and 4K.

Sincerely,
Carol Dickinson
1030 25th Street
Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: S Ruth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council Agenda Items 4J - OPPOSE, Item 12A - OPPOSE, Item 10A - OPPOSE, Item4K - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
My family and I STRONGLY OPPOSE the following measures before the City Council on Tuesday, May 13, 2024:
 Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE  Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 - OPPOSE  Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone – OPPOSE While I am not opposed to the idea in concept, the Council needs to consider limited locations, security and hours. This could be a nightmare if not properly monitored and controlled. It also needs to be an asset for the existing small businesses, not an additional liability.
 Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE
Best Regards,
Steve Ruth
1501 Georgina Ave, Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Richard Robin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Oppose

EXTERNAL
Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 - OPPOSE Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone – OPPOSE Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE
Richard Robin
818-621-3964
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Adeena Karsseboom Fitterman <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 4J - MAY 13, 2025 - OPPPOSE

EXTERNAL
I hereby oppose AGENDA ITEM 4J - SM FOR SB 79.

I OPPOSE
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Adeena K. Fitterman
Estates Director
310.991.8166
[email protected]
9440 Santa Monica Blvd, PH | Beverly Hills CA. 90210
carolwoodre.com
DRE 02012059
The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Sally Reinman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 4J

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember,
Please OPPOSE Agenda Item 4J, expressing the city’s support for SB79. This is not the way to plan development in a city, allowing 7 story buildings over such a broad region. It does not take into account traffic patterns, existing neighborhoods, or the infrastructure present to support such development. It is shameful in its disregard for affordable housing as it purports to be necessary for housing needs.

We urge you to oppose this broad brush stroke to thoughtlessly over-developed our city with no regard to providing affordable housing.

Thank you,
Sally Reinman
Marcel Geloen
11 Vicente Terrace
Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:09 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Bruce Leddy; Nancy Coleman; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

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

TO: Mayor Negrete and Council Members
RE: ITEM 4J, May 13, 2025 – OPPOSE
The Board of NOMA opposes Item 4J, which directs the City Manager to draft and submit a letter expressing the City’s support for Senate Bill 79 (Wiener). When this item was requested as Item 16E in the April 8, 2025 Council meeting, residents sent numerous letters in opposition and multiple community members testified against the item in person. It is wholly inappropriate for this item to now be on the consent calendar. SB 79 is a highly divisive bill, and is inconsistent with Santa Monica’s 2025-26 State Legislative Platform.

Senate Housing Committee Chair Aisha Wahab (D, Fremont) and Senate Local Government Committee Chair Maria Elena Durazo (D, Los Angeles) both voted “no” on SB 79, reflecting a high degree of division over this bill in the Senate Democratic Caucus. Senator Wahab stated that this bill is a “sweetheart deal” for developers, and that “giveaways to developers have…not translated to housing that has dignity that people want to stay in and raise their families in.” Senator Durazo observed that “if we leave decisions about what to build up to market-rate developers who do not have the broader public interest in their minds, it’s the wrong way to go.” Senate Bill 79 is inconsistent with our city’s 2025-26 State Legislative Platform because, as stated in the staff report, “SB 79 does not recognize the achievements of Pro-Housing Designated cities by upholding local autonomy over land-use decisions and excluding those cities from onerous new regulations which we have advocated for in the past.”
SB 79 goes against Santa Monica's core values by encouraging unfettered high-rise development with no affordability requirements, and by eviscerating what little local Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 control remains over land-use decisions. Please remove Item 4J from the consent calendar and reject the recommendation for the City Manager to support SB 79.

The Board of NOMA
Cc:

The Honorable Ben Allen
The Honorable Rick Chavez Zbur
NOMA'S Next Meeting: THUR. JUNE 5th
at 7PM on ZOOM
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81526517066
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 5 David Yakobson
From: Gary Freedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 5:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J -May 13, 2025 Meeting -OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern
This Agenda Item is a very bad idea for Santa Monica. It will transform the character of this City--the very character that has made it a very nice to live and raise a family.

We are residents of Santa Monica for 50+ years. Donna grew up in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Gary & Donna Freedman
533 9th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 6 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA #4J - 5/13/25 -OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
I am writing to oppose Agenda 4J , building 7-story multi-units in Santa Monica’s residential neighborhoods.

With or without parking availability, this is the wrong solution for low income housing in our City.

Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 7 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica.

This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 8 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 4J on 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
Please do NOT support Agenda Item 4J on 5/13/25. Let’s not damage or ruin this city with this ill-conceived proposal.

Thank you,
Kirk & Nan Borcherding
residents
924 25th Street
Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 9 David Yakobson
From: Roger Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 4J: Oppose - SB 79

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica City Council Members,
Agenda Item 4J: Oppose SB 79
Roger Allen
Santa Monica Resident

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 10 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson and Roger Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: 5/13/25 Agenda item 4-J Oppose SB-79

EXTERNAL
From: Cathy Larson and Roger Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:38 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: 5/13/25 Agenda item 4-J Oppose SB-79
Oppose SB 79
Densifying single family neighborhoods and destroying exisƟng mulƟfamily housing (especially displacing exisƟng residents) is NOT the best way to create addiƟonal affordable housing.

I urge you to oppose SB 79 and NOT send a leƩer of support to the state legislature.

Housing expansion can be creaƟng in more suitable locaƟons along transit corridors including underuƟlized commercial buildings and parking lots.

Thank you,
Cathy Larson
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 11 David Yakobson
From: Adam Gross <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
SB79 is so bad even Ben Allen opposes it. Let's keep local control and worry about the problems in Santa Monica instead of state politics.

Sincerely,
Adam Gross
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 12 David Yakobson
From: George Ferrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members:

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
George Ferrell
338 15th St
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 13 David Yakobson
From: George Ferrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members:

Thank you,
Peggy Ferrell
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 14 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson and Roger Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: 5/13/25 Agenda item 4-J Oppose SB-79

EXTERNAL
Oppose SB 79
Densifying single family neighborhoods and destroying exisƟng mulƟfamily housing (especially displacing exisƟng residents) is NOT the best way to create addiƟonal affordable housing.

I urge you to oppose SB 79 and NOT send a leƩer of support to the state legislature.

Housing expansion can be creaƟng in more suitable locaƟons along transit corridors including underuƟlized commercial buildings and parking lots.

Thank you,
Cathy Larson
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 15 David Yakobson
From: Sue Edwards <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Letter of Support for SB 79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
OPPOSE
Sue Edwards
428 - 15th St.
90402
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 16 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; Douglas Sloan
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Council Agenda Item 4-J - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council and City Manager
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: OPPOSE Agenda Item 4-J, May 13, 2025
Why would the individuals elected to Santa Monica City Council choose to surrender control over local land use by sending a letter in support of Scott Weiner’s Senate Bill 79? Why is City Staff in agreement? City staff has submitted an “analysis” in support of this action by Council despite the fact that it undermines local housing plans, plans that already include incentives for affordability and support Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals.

The Staff report includes this unequivocal comment:

SB 79 is consistent with the City’s adopted Legislative Platform in that it has the potential to increase housing production, at a faster pace, and for less cost.

The fact that SB 79 seeks to disregard and short-circuit thoughtful, community-driven planning is not addressed by staff. If SB79 passes in the Senate, it would allow intense densification in more than 70% of Santa Monica without producing affordable housing.

Developers are licking their chops.

Northeast Neighbors opposes the action proposed in City Council May 13 2025 Agenda Item 4-J.

The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 17 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FOSP: 5/13 Council agenda item 4-J -- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
May 12, 2025

To: Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

RE: 5/13/25 agenda item 4-J -- Support for SB-79 -- OPPOSE!

The FOSP Board urges you NOT to send a letter of support for SB-79.

To begin with, there's no affordability requirement.

For the city as a whole, it appears that everywhere between Montana Avenue and Ocean Park Blvd. will be affected.

For the Sunset Park neighborhood, due to the east-west #7 bus line on Pico Blvd., and the north-south #3 bus line on Lincoln Blvd., most of our neighborhood would be affected.

While much of Sunset Park is zoned R-1, half of our housing units are actually in multifamily buildings, and approximately 3,500 apartments in Sunset Park are rent-controlled.

Under SB-79, developers can demolish low-rise rent-controlled apartments to build 7- and 8-story luxury units, while ignoring local zoning and local requirements regarding height, parking, and setbacks.

This will displace long-term, elderly, disabled, and low-income renters in our neighborhood.

What good will the city's POD program (Preserving Our Diversity) do these residents if their buildings are sold out from under them?

SB-79 encourages speculative real estate purchases, rewards demolition over preservation, undermines democratically approved Housing Elements, and ignores democratically approved affordability requirements such a Prop R, which was passed by Santa Monica voters in 1990 and requires that 30% of new apartments be affordable.

A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that housing prices are driven more by the income of new residents than by supply.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 18 So, just using SB-79 to incentivize the construction of more and more market rate housing will NOT bring down rents.

SB-79 will help developers, but it WON'T HELP people who are currently struggling with spending 50% of their income on rent.

We've been told that our State Senator Ben Allen opposes this law.

This was a 16 item earlier, never included a staff report or discussion because no analysis was available, and Council voted to table the item.

This proposed endorsement is still premature because there is no County analysis yet, and the city's staff report is thin and lacks meaningful analysis of the impact of SB79 on Santa Monica. Furthermore, by listing this as a Consent item, it means there will be no staff report, no clarifying questions, and no Council discussion of the actual substance of SB79 for the endorsement of a bill that will fundamentally alter the vast majority of Santa Monica.

Again, the FOSP Board urges you NOT to send a letter of support for SB-79.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 19 David Yakobson
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Friendsofsunsetpark Info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nikki Kolhoff; [email protected] Subject: RE: SB79

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

I write in opposition to the proposal to "support" SB79, which is a statute that would, if enacted, enable developers to acquire single family lots in Santa Monica, demolish the homes, and replace them with tall, dense, sun-grabbing, market-rate apartments or condos. There are several things you need to read in the Senate Committee on Local Government's report attached to your agenda. At least four things jumped out at me -- and would to anyone reading the report:

First, the report points out that there is no guarantee that any level of affordable units will be built. (See page 7, last sentence of 1st paragraph).

Second, this statute has so many flaws and anti-public provisions that the report says, no less than SEVEN (7) times, that the Senate "may wish to amend" the bill to correct or mitigate the deficiencies it articulates in detail.

Third, the report points out that the bill imposes a new state mandate on cities, but disclaims any responsibility to comply with the state Constitution's reimbursement requirement (see para 10, at page 10).

Are you comfortable with supporting mandated expenses with no reimbursement, given our current city financial crisis requiring cutbacks on libraries and other normal amenities for residents? Fourth, you will see a list of the bill's "supporters" and "opponents" at the end of the report, in which there are 90 cities listed. Of those 90 cities, guess how many support the bill? Exactly ONE (1), which is tiny West Hollywood (otherwise known as Apartment City). Meanwhile, the other 89 cities all OPPOSE the bill, as did the League of California Cities, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, Public Counsel, Public Interest Law Project, Public Law Center, Public Advocates, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Urban Habitat, Disability Rights California, Mental Health Advocacy Servicers, and numerous other public-spirited groups. These organizations have lawyers who have actually read the bill (and the report) and understand what it means.

This tells you all you need to know.

You may think you would be promoting more affordable "housing" by supporting this bill, but you are NOT, you are merely supporting the developers and tech firms who have commandeered, through their YMBY lobbying organizations, the state legislative process over the last few years to de-regulate municipal land use, enable immense speculative profits, and strip cities of local control. You can count no less that 16 different YIMBY organizations listed as "supporters" of the bill, including its Co-Sponsor, "California YIMBY" (see page 10). Numerous published articles have unveiled these YIMBYs as campaign funders to Senator Scott Weiner and others who have promoted the deregulation of housing as a form of "trickle-down" housing supply, a Reagan-era theory thoroughly debunked by economists.

You do not want to be on the wrong side of history on this volatile issue by sending a letter of "support" that will do nothing but place Santa Monica in the column of developer supporters.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 20 John Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
tel. (310) 450-1859
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 21 David Yakobson
From: Ralph Barton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J - 5.12.2025 – "Support letter from SM for SB 79" - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
This is a poor idea, we need housing but not unrestricted development. What works for Fresno won’t work in Santa Monica

STRONGLY OPPOSE
Ralph Barton
908 26th St.

SM, CA
_______________________________
Ralph G. Barton, Jr. (Mobile) 310-633-4963 (Fax) 310-564-7577 Bring the Joy®
Nothing Bundt Cakes
Manhattan Beach,CA – Torrance,CA - Costa Mesa,CA – Mission Viejo,CA Roseville,CA – Folsom,CA - Newton,MA
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 22 David Yakobson
From: Marcy Hardart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79 5/13/25 OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
This is insanity--to allow developers to build these large buildings without formal review or environmental impact studies.

We just did construction on an ADU on our property, and the city made us jump through SO MANY HOOPS. We cannot make it easier for big developers to build than 30 year residents who are just updating a guest house.

PLEASE do not let this go through.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 23 David Yakobson
From: Bea Nemlaha <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Agenda Item 4J - Support letter for SB79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Council,
I’ve just returned from extended out of the country travels. When asked where I was from, the response inevitably was “Santa Monica, what a beautiful, interesting City”.

It was. Once.

But now, our 1950s Soviet-style apartment blocks, traƯic congestion, and replacement of art (loss of Bergamot), imagination (e.g. no Olympics, departure of Spirit Awards), and interesting neighborhoods with actual and proposed cheesy entertainment options (Promenade Entertainment Zone, Agenda Item 10A ) oƯer little to future visitors.

People do not travel to visit housing. Santa Monica is one of the five most densely populated cities in California. We don’t need more market rate housing. And while it may be heresy to say so, we should have a lively community discussion of whether we need more housing at all.

NO ON SB79.

Bea Nemlaha
Ocean Park

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 24 David Yakobson
From: Jerry Bass <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Fwd: 5-13-25 SM CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 4J OPPOSE – Support letter from SM for SB 79 -

EXTERNAL
Subject: 5-13-25 SM CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 4J OPPOSE – Support letter from SM for SB 79 -
Date: May 12, 2025 at 8:58:19 PM PDT
To: Bass Jerry <[email protected]>
Council Members:

On behalf of our community’s welfare and in keeping with good Santa Monica planning practices, please do not support, but rather oppose writing a letter in support of Wieners’s developer’s dream bill:

Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE This item would direct the City Manager to draft a letter expressing the City’s support for SB 79 (Wiener). SB79 would allow 7-story market rate apartment towers in the blue zone in the map above without offering any affordable housing.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jerry Bass
40 Year Resident of Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 25 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE : 5/1/2025 ITEM 4J

EXTERNAL
DO NOT SUPPORT SB 79
THIS IS WEINER AT HIS WORST- and that is going some since everything he has done is terrible - STOP HIM--

YIMBY AT IT'S GREEDIEST
It does NOTHING FOR affordable housingWE DID NOT VOTE FOR MORE HOUSING

WE DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS

A VOTE FOR THIS SHOULD SEE ALL OF YOU RECALLED
Danielle Charney
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 26 David Yakobson
From: barbanell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5-13-25 SM CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 4J OPPOSE – Support letter from SM for SB 79 -

EXTERNAL
Council Members:

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Barbanell
40 Year Resident of Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 27 David Yakobson
From: Olga Milosavljevic <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
I'm concerned that Councilperson Zwick is pushing a bill that removes City control over what happens in Santa Monica. Of course we want more housing and of course we want to support the evolution away from cars to public transit. what gets built, where it gets built and for whom has to be reviewed and approved by the city - not cripplingly so but review has to occur.

As the city continues to pass increasing costs on to its residents - water etc, it's giving away freebies to developers. Santa Monica is a desirable location. Those who want to contribute and pay their fare share are welcome. But those who will only develop market rate dwellings while asking for all kinds of short cuts are not.

ZWICK - remember who elected you and who you represent. --
Olga Milosavljevic
[email protected]
What we have before us are some breathtaking opportunities disguised as insoluble problems -- John W.

Gardner 1965
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 28 David Yakobson
From: Mark Ford <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Reid Thompson
Subject: ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE")

EXTERNAL
As a resident the Ocean Park neighborhood in Santa Monica, my family strongly opposes this misguided measure.

It is hard to believe anyone would consider supporting 7 or 8 story towers rising above our beautiful Main Street... displacing parking and our beloved Farmers’ Market. What shocking and disgusting proposal. More and more, it seems our city council favors developers’ money over our quality of life. Councilmember zwick, in particular, seems to be very much pushing developers’ greedy agendas. We will be watching these developments very closely and will fight the destruction of our quality of life fiercely. Our beautiful beach community is no Miami Beach.

Mark Ford
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 29 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:25 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Subject: OPPOSITION: SMCC 2025-05-13 Item 4.J. - SB 79 Endorsement

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members
I am strongly opposed to City of Santa Monica endorsement of SB 79 for several fundamental reasons.

In stark contrast to the factually incorrect assertions made in the Staff Report, SB 79 will absolutely undermine the City’s adopted affordability and inclusionary requirements by removing the most affordable areas from inclusionary development.

The total absence of any inclusionary affordable requirement in SB 79 ensures that the targeted affordable areas will be off limits to any new inclusionary affordable development since that development is less profitable than 100% luxury market rate projects. With the loss of inclusionary affordable-friendly suitable sites to exclusively market rate luxury development, SB 79 will destroy the integrity of the City’s approved Housing Element, essentially rendering the entire RHNA process moot. In doing so, SB 79 will significantly increase the City’s risk of failing to meet its absurdly high affordable unit requirements, increasing the City’s already high exposure to Builders Remedy, fines, and further loss of planning control, among other State RHNA penalties.

Inexplicably, the Staff Report notes that this legislation “…promotes the production of infill residential housing and requires all localities to build their fair share.” SB 79 exclusively promotes market rate development, a category where the City is currently tracking at over 200%(!) of the State’s 6th Cycle allocation. Historically, the City has consistently exceeded, by huge margins, this RHNA allocation category requirement. Further production of this housing unit category is completely meaningless.

And, just to be crystal clear, the provision of luxury market rate units only increases overall housing costs through gentrification. There is no “supply” impact that magically lowers overall housing costs. That canard was thoroughly and complely debunked by Federal Reserve economists and the National Bureau of Economic Research in March of this year [a][b].

Moreover, contrary to every professed City value, displacement risk and hyper gentrification impacting the city’s non-displaced moderate-income residents will drastically escalate while providing zero new affordable units. The supercharged gentrification, which functions as a regressive tax on those same vulnerable residents, is particularly rich coming from a City that maintains, as a key policy tenet, the desire to moderate the cost of living for its residents.

Finally, the City’s current financial crisis is precisely the result of this type of uninformed and misinformed policy decisions that increase the City’s long run cost structure, in this case services and overall infrastructure capacity. The addition of ministerially-approved density on this scale will increase long run costs far beyond either Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 30 existing revenue inflation or the City’s ability to develop new revenue streams. Given all the City and resident priorities that are currently at risk, to call this irresponsible is being charitable.

Frankly, I am shocked that this item has been brought to Council and that the accompanying Staff Report is either completely silent on the fundamental issues or factually misrepresents the negative impacts of this extraordinarily ill-conceived bill.

There is absolutely no argument that even remotely justifies supporting SB 79. As SB 79 has absolutely no community or state-wide housing benefits, I strongly urge you to oppose this Agenda Item 4.J. I also strongly urge this Council to instruct the City’s legislative lobbyists to strenuously oppose the highly destructive SB 79.

Thank you,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Chair, Santa Monica Audit Subcommittee
[a] Supply Constraints Do Not Explain House Price and Quantity Growth Across U.S. Cities - San Francisco Fed 03-2025
https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/wp2025-06.pdf
[b] Supply Constraints Do Not Explain House Price And Quantity Growth - NBER 33576 Mar 2025 http://www.nber.org/papers/w33576
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 31 David Yakobson
From: Karen Freedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J, 5/13/2025- OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Please accept this email as an official declaration of my opposition to Agenda Item 4J. I want my opposition included in the official record.

Thank you,
Karen Freedman
Santa Monica 90402
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 32 David Yakobson
From: Vivien Flitton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Sincerely,
Vivien Flitton
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 33 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? Other than developers, whose interests would SB79 serve? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
William and Mary Lou Schoene
1519 Oak Street
Santa Monica 90405
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 34 David Yakobson
From: Rachel Harms <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J 5/13/25 – Support letter from SM for SB 79 – OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members
I am a 30 year resident of Santa Monica, as both a renter and an owner. I strongly oppose SB 79 and I urge you to do the same. The City of Santa Monica should not advocate for ending our local land use zones. This catastrophe is destroying our city - it amounts to a giveaway to the big developers.

Sincerely,
Rachel Harms
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 35 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; Douglas Sloan
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Council Agenda Item 4J , May 13, 2025 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Staff is recommending that the City Council vote to remove the SB9 owner occupancy requirement that was added to SB9 in order to help it pass in the State legislature. Now our own City Council is being encouraged by City staff to remove the owner-occupancy requirement.

The owner occupancy requirement in SB9 was meant to encourage multi-generational housing.

Removing it will open up neighborhoods to land speculators. This is a violation of the public trust.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 36 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Council Agenda Item 4J May 13, 2025 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To City Council
From: Northeast Neighbors
Council Agenda Item 4J, May 13 2025
This item would direct the City Manager to draft a letter expressing the City’s support for SB 79 and allow 7- story market rate apartment towers throughout most of Santa Monica with no affordability. We are stunned by the alignment of City staff and Council on such an outrageous abandonment of the people of Santa Monica.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 37 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Save our Neighborhoods and City -OPPOSE- AGENDA ITEM 4J-Support Letter from SM for SB 70 5/13/25 -OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
We need more Police and a SubStation in the Promenade, not an Entertainment Zone.

AGENDA ITEM 4J-Support Letter from SM for SB 70 5/13/25 - OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 12A-End Owner Accompany Requirement in SB9- 5/13/25 - OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 10A-Promenade Entertainment Zone - 5/13/25 - OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 4K Public Input Rules 5/13/25 - OPPOSE
30 Year SM Resident and Homeowner
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 38 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Friends of Sunset Park
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - Oppose vehemently

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am extremely concerned about SB79 and must respectfully and STRONGLY oppose Councilman Zwick's efforts to have the City of Santa Monica endorse this bill.

In its current form, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout most of our R1 and R2 neighborhood.

The bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building), and will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It will not make housing more affordable in Santa Monica!
The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

Bus stops as determinants for building allowances are still in the bill as of today. This is a truly misguided way to zone. Bus stops change. Bus routes change. Rapid transit lanes change. Frequency of buses can change in an instant! A bus stop that on one day doesn't fall under SB79 could, with the tiniest decision to increase the frequency of a bus by a few minutes, completely change a neighborhood overnight. We cannot put zoning for housing at the discretion of transit authorities, especially when they could come under the influence of special interests, with no accountability to voters.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 39 We cannot keep giving more of our local control away to politicians in Sacramento who don't understand the layout of our city.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this ill-conceived zoning in our city.

Thank you so much,
Heather Thomason
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 40 David Yakobson
From: Freida Dubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Noma Boardmember
Subject: ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE
If you want to revitalize the Promenade and bring more businesses and people here, do your homework -- take a look at nearby Century City shopping mall and the shopping area in the Palisades (before the fire).

Business was booming there. Why – they provided a clean and SAFE environment – not because they allowed public alcohol consumption. People don’t want to come to Santa Monica with the homeless and other people walking around screaming, attacking people, etc. – tourists, councilmembers and police have been attacked. Santa Monica has a reputation as a “not safe” place to go. If I didn’t live nearby, I would never come here. If you want to revitalize the Promenade, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE A CLEAN AND SAFE ENVIRONMENT. Also, you need convenient parking – and you plan to get rid of more parking garages! I have lived in Santa Monica over 40 years and oppose allowing public alcohol consumption. Do you not understand why people don’t want to come here and why businesses have moved away? Removing a sign will not remove the problem here. What’s next – free drug use?

Freida Dubin
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 41 David Yakobson
From: SUSAN AMINOFF <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Item 4J -- May 13, 2025

EXTERNAL
Hello Councilmembers:

We strongly oppose buildings up to 7 stories to be built without formal review anywhere within 1/2 mile of mass transit. There is NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING requirement, which means developers can build 100% market rate apartment towers anywhere in Santa Monica near a bus line. Sen. Ben Allen has already stated publicly that HE OPPOSES THE BILL! Thank you.

Howard and Susan Aminoff
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 42 David Yakobson
From: Richard Thaler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: Item 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Please vote no on Item 4J - Letter of Support on SB79
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 4:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-Tem Torosis, and Council Members - SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirements (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building).

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE this effort to encourage destructive zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 28+ years
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ed Towle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council mtg. 5/13/25

EXTERNAL
Item 4J 5/13/25 OPPOSE
Item 4-K 5/13/25 OPPOSE
Edmund J. Towle III
349 15th street
SM
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Johanna Rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda items for City Council meeting on Tuesday May 13

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I’m a resident of Santa Monica, residing at 223 21st Street. Please note that I oppose the following items that are on the agenda for tomorrow night’s meeting.
1)ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone. - OPPOSE
2)ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79. OPPOSE
3)ITEM 4K - Change in Public Input Rules. - OPPOSE
Thanks,
Johanna Rogers
310-699-3782
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Julie Cantor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to items on agenda of tomorrow's City Council meeting

EXTERNAL
Hello —
I am respectfully lodging opposition to the following items, and, if possible, I will attend the meeting in person to voice the concern:
 1. Item 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone. OPPOSE. There is no upside to walking around with alcohol, especially at 8 a.m., and the normative value of showing the community and the kids that the adults need alcohol to entertain themselves is concerning. Just drink in the restaurants, if you must.
 2. Item 4J - SB 79. OPPOSE. We do not need 7 story buildings in Santa Monica. Do not give control of build by forgoing formal review and environmental impact studies. Following the money, who benefits??
 3. Item 4K - Change in Public Input Rules. OPPOSE. Let people speak.

Thank you and best regards.

Julie Cantor
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:43 PM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: gary samson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis Subject: , 4J and 4K

EXTERNAL
We want to express our opposition to these Items on the counsel agenda.

ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone. This ordinance would allow open alcohol consumption on The Promenade in the 1200 block (Wilshire end) from 8am to 2am, 7 days a week. Revitalization of the Mall is essential but allowing open consumption will invite trouble and the need for increased law enforcement and will further discourage families and senior citizens from going to the mall. . 2)ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79. This is terrible for our city. Up to seven story buildings' everywhere in the city?. Who gains from this except developers who care nothing about the livability of Santa Monica. This bill will turn our city into streets of concrete walls and destroy the charm of Santa Monica. .
3)ITEM 4K- We should encourage more public expression on city issues, not less. Let's not stifle free speech.

Gary Samson Laurie Samson
1407 Car;y;e Ave 90402
[email protected]
Cell: 213-598-4043
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: ADRIANA SHEINBAUM <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 10A - ITEM 4K - ITEM 4J OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City of Santa Monica Councilmembers,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to three items currently under consideration during tomorrow’s meeting:

ITEM 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone
We strongly oppose the proposed ordinance allowing open alcohol consumption on the 1200 block of The Promenade from 8 a.m. to 2 a.m., seven days a week. This policy raises serious concerns about public safety, noise, sanitation, and the overall character of the Promenade. Extending alcohol consumption to public spaces for such long hours is inappropriate and incompatible with maintaining a welcoming and family-friendly environment.

ITEM 4K – Change in Public Input Rules
We also oppose any changes that would reduce the public's right to comment and provide input on Council decisions.

Community participation is essential to a healthy democracy, and any attempt to limit our voices undermines the transparency and accountability we expect from our local government.

ITEM 4J – Letter of Support for SB 79
We oppose the endorsement of SB 79, which we view as a giveaway to developers. Allowing buildings of up to seven stories without formal review or environmental impact studies—and without requiring any affordable housing—erodes responsible urban planning and disregards the needs of Santa Monica residents. This legislation would lead to unchecked development without addressing the housing affordability crisis.

We urge the Council to reject these items to preserve our community's public safety and democratic participation.

Sincerely,
Adriana Sheinbaum
Rodrigo Garcia
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Scott Epstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Azeen Khanmalek; Jake Pierce; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Abundant Housing LA supports Item 4.J
Attachments: Santa Monica - 05-13-25 Agenda Item 4.J - Support.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members:

Please find attached a letter in support of Item 4.J on tomorrow's council agenda.

Thank you very much,
Scott Epstein
(He/Him)
Policy and Research Director, Abundant Housing LA
516-721-6056
453 Spring Street, Suite 1201
Los Angeles, CA, 90013
We request that candidates do not send us confidential campaign strategy information, including polling data or other information that is not publicly available.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) May 12, 2025
Subject: 5/13/25 Agenda Item 4.J: Support
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
It is no secret that our region is experiencing an acute housing crisis, driven by a shortage of homes that’s led to nearly 60% of LA County households spending more than they can afford on rent. With that in mind, Abundant Housing LA is pleased to see Santa Monica is poised to take a position on Senate Bill 79, to create more transit-oriented development. We strongly urge you to vote to support SB 79.

For too long, density caps and zoning limitations across California have made it illegal to build the housing we need. Not only have these restrictions contributed to our housing crisis, but they’ve also led to urban sprawl, which, in turn, leads to increased traffic congestion, air pollution, and carbon emissions which have degraded our climate. In order to bring down the cost of housing, reduce car traffic, and mitigate climate change, we must build more housing near transit.

SB 79 will allow critical zoning reforms to facilitate much-needed housing development near transit stops across California. By doing so, SB 79 will help address the state’s ongoing housing shortage while promoting sustainable development, reducing traffic congestion, and supporting public transit systems.

Following a steep dip in transit riders that worsened in 2020, LA Metro’s ridership has been slowly improving and approaching pre-Covid levels. Even so, Metro’s troubling decline actually predated the global pandemic. Just last year, LA Metro’s overall ridership was just 66% of what it was in 2013. The good news is that LA Metro is in the process of building out an exciting and sorely needed expansion of rail transit across LA County. As such, residents are already investing in this expansion through our taxes. Needless to say, it is imperative that we ensure the long-term success and viability of this mutli-billion dollar investment. Transit systems rely on sustainable and reliable ridership in order to succeed, and a significant source of the ridership comes from the residents of transit-oriented development near stations.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 will facilitate more housing development, ensure the long-term success of our transit investments by allowing transit riders to live near stations, and help solve our climate crisis by getting people out of their cars and onto transit. We thank you for your leadership and request your support for this pivotal reform.

Sincerely,
Scott Epstein, Policy and Research Director
Abundant Housing LA
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Gail Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Gail Gordon
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Katherine Reuter
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 David Yakobson
From: danilobach <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 2)ITEM 4J - Letter re SB 79 on 5/12/25 Agenda

EXTERNAL
Oppose, unless a statutory requirement for a minimum of low-income or affordable housing is included.

Danilo Bach
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Joan Goldsmith Gurfield <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 12:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Misguided meeting items

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Several items scheduled to be discussed seem misguided and/or dangerous.

Item 10A allows open alcohol consumption from 8 a.m. to 2 a.m., daily. What is the necessity for this? I think it will lead to public drunkenness, accidents, fights, etc.

Item 4J, supporting the development of buildings with no affordable housing requirement contradicts what has been policy in Santa Monica for many years. Why do we need market rate apartments that ignore affordable housing? Our Senator, Ben Allen, opposes this bill.

Item 4K, changing the time for public input, while understandable (in terms of long meetings and people's patience) doesn't allow adequate time for some arguments to be made.

I strongly urge you to reconsider all of these items.

Thank you
Joan Gurfield
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Kara Fox <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: pam hausman
Subject: Please, vote NO NO NO

EXTERNAL
To our city council. How many of y ou have driven through our wonderful city lately. Please take a good look and see what is happening. Who is looking out for the community itself? Please vote no on the following issues:
10A…prominent entertainment zone??? Is this in the best interest of the community or people who like to party at the expense of others? Till 2 am…why??? Please vote no. 4J…in support of SB79…drafted by Scott Weiner who doesn’t even live in Santa Monica and who has allegedly received large campaign contributions from large R.E. companies. And allegedly bomb threats???Please vote NO
4K…change in public input rules…shouldn’t we encourage the community to have enough time to speak so we can know how the public feels and also, in hopes we can learn.

Let’s help our city, not destroy it. Thank you. Kara Fox, 235 14th street for more than 22 years.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Pamela S. Hausman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: HELP!! VOTE NO!!!

EXTERNAL
To our city council, HELP!!
Please take a good look and see what is happening in our city!! Who is looking out for the community itself? Please vote NO on the following issues IF you really care about our beautiful city and do not want to see it continue to go to thieves, drunks and homeless 10A…prominent entertainment zone??? Is this in the best interest of the community or people who like to party at the expense of others? Till 2 am…why??? Please VOTE NO 4J…in support of SB79…drafted by Scott Weiner who doesn’t even live in Santa Monica and who has allegedly received large campaign contributions from large R.E. companies. And allegedly bomb threats???Please VOTE NO!!
4K…change in public input rules…shouldn’t we encourage the community to have enough time to speak so we can know how the public feels and also, in hopes we can learn.

PLEASE MAKE A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE IN OUT COMMUNITY!
Nobody shops here any more. Stores closing down. And it just keeps getting worse! WHAT CAN YOU DO TO MAKE A POSITIVE CHANGE???? Perhaps less affordable housing, more police presence,
offer incentives for nice stores and restaurants to open again.

How about refreshing 3rd Street Promenade? It is like a morgue! Pamela
[email protected]
449 24th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
This message is Proprietary & Confidential. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Leslie Wizan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 12:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE - 5/13/25 AGENDA ITEMS - 10A, 4J, 4K
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
As a 38 year resident of Santa Monica, I vehemently oppose the following 5/13/25 agenda items:
10A - promenade entertainment zone
4J - letter of support on SB79
4K - change in public input rules
Leslie Wizan
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Susan Stangl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEMS 10A, 4J, 4K, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Regarding Item 10A - What are you thinking?! This is a BAD IDEA. Nothing good comes from drinking early in the day. We have enough crime and noise downtown already. Our police force is already stretched to the limit and doesn't need more nonsense like public drunkenness. I have been to Bourbon Street. It's horrible.

Regarding Item 4J - This makes no sense. The city has different areas that have different needs and should not give away its remaining control to say what can be built where. Yes, It would be great to have more affordable housing, but that is not what this bill would do. It only encourages developers to build expensiver housing all over the city. I was a fan of Jesse Zuick, but not of his support for this bill.

Regarding 4K - Enough of cracking down on free speech. I always appreciated the fact that my city allows open interchange with its citizens. Now if not the time to restrict that. You should care what we think and give us the chance to express ourselves fully.

Thank you!
Susan Stangl
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Maria Loya
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Aram Kadish <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city. Thank you, Aram Kadish
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 David Yakobson
From: Ralph Mechur <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 4J

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Council,
Santa Monica has taken great care to protect its neighborhoods and direct denser housing with increased heights to the boulevards. SB79 will allow large areas of Mid-City and Pico neighborhoods and a small area of Ocean Park to be drastically altered destroying the character of our residential community. SB 79 should not be supported unless there is assurance that our neighborhoods remain intact.

Sincerely,
Ralph Mechur
Ralph Mechur Architects
2800 Airport Avenue, #1A
Santa Monica, CA 90405
o: 310-398-2940
m: 310-721-1254
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 5 David Yakobson
From: Susan Judd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 4J-OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 6 David Yakobson
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 12:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

A major concern for me is It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building).

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Will von Bernuth
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 7 David Yakobson
From: Cindy Fraser <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Cynthia Fraser
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 8 David Yakobson
From: nancykless <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Nancy Kless
310-890-4266
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 9 Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 10 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. Please oppose this bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash.

The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Thank you,
Kelly
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 11 David Yakobson
From: Susan Jain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Susan Jain
Sunset Park Resident
Vice Chair, SM Arts Commission
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 12 David Yakobson
From: Bronwyn Barkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; [email protected]; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Bronwyn Barkan
Resident Sunset Park
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 13 David Yakobson
From: Danny Guggenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I strongly object to the proposal that the Council take any action in support of SB79, which is an extremely misguided bill that could permanently alter and destroy the Sunset Park neighborhood as well as the appeal of our City in general as an attractive place to raise a family relative to nearby alternatives.

It would be a fundamental change to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially Sunset Park, if 5-7 story apartment buildings could be developed throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhoods. All local zoning would essentially be overridden by SB79, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Our quiet, airy neighborhood would inevitably become an urban jungle. And worse, the bill will result in higher land prices immediately and be a boon to developers, who are the only ones who will be able to pay more for land that is intended to be held by individuals as homeowners and not as corporate interests.

Lastly, unbelievably, the bill has zero affordability requirement. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away, and it is shocking that any member of the Council would even propose to support this bill.

I urge you to oppose any action by the Council in support of SB79.

Thank you,
Danny Guggenheim
Sunset Park homeowner since 2006
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 14 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city. Thank you,
Vincent Esparza
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 15 David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Jordan Ellis
Resident of Sunset Park
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 16 David Yakobson
From: Diana Bianchini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Diana Bianchini
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Diana Bianchini
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 17 David Yakobson
From: Lauren Marie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Friends of Sunset Park
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Lauren Wyka
821 Bay St.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 18 Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

Thank you,
Kelli Urode
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:47 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Armine Chaparyan; Jing Yeo
Subject: City Council Mtg. - 5/13/2025 - Item 4J - Wilmont Board Opposes City Council Endorsing SB 79

EXTERNAL
May 12, 2025
Subject: City Council Mtg. 5/13 – Item 4J -- Wilmont Board Opposes City Council Endorsing SB 79 Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and Honorable City Council Members, Wilmont is a multi-family neighborhood (zoned R2 and R3), bounded by Ocean Avenue to the west, Montana Avenue to the north, 21st Street to the east, and Wilshire Boulevard to the south. More than 80% of our residents are renters, and approximately 70% of those renters live in rent-controlled units. These buildings are mostly 2–3 stories and owned by local individuals or families—not corporations. SB 79 would allow these buildings to be demolished and replaced with 4-7 story buildings; rent-control as we know it would vanish from this neighborhood.

We are writing to express our strong opposition to endorsing SB 79, which, especially when paired with the State Density Bonus (SDB), poses an existential threat to the affordability, character, and diversity of our community.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 Zoning Comparison: Current vs. SB 79 + State Density Bonus Zoning Type Max Height Max
Units/Acre FAR Avg. Unit Size
(est.) Required Affordability
R2 (Current) 25–30 ft ~17–20 1.0 850–1,000 sq
ft 30% (Prop R); 15% AHPP
R3 (Current) 30–35 ft ~25–30 1.5 800–1,000 sq
ft 30% (Prop R); 15% AHPP
SB 79 45–55 ft ~60–80 2.5–3.0 500–700 sq ft 0%
SB 79 + State Density Bonus 75+ ft 100+ 3.5+ 450–650 sq ft 10–15% (low-income only) This chart reveals a troubling trade-off: SB 79 alone contains no affordability requirement. When paired with the SDB, it delivers only 10–15% low-income units—well below Santa Monica’s longstanding 30% standard.

Furthermore, these bonuses often fail to replace demolished rent-controlled and other affordable units, resulting in a net loss of affordable housing.

Displacement and Gentrification Threat
SB 79 would apply to 100% of Wilmont, as our neighborhood lies within half a mile of major transit stops, including Metro Rapid and Big Blue Bus lines along Wilshire Boulevard. However, service reductions have weakened transit connectivity —such as the elimination of direct BBB Express service to Downtown LA— calling into question the bill’s assumption of robust transit access. In the map below, the blue overlay shows the half-mile lot coverage from major transit stops (every 20 minutes) from Wilshire Boulevard. The orange rectangle is the Wilmont neighborhood, an R2 and R3 neighborhood in Santa Monica.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 Is it worth demolishing hundreds of small-scale, rent-controlled buildings to find out if this density will increase transit ridership? History tells us this type of speculative redevelopment has devastating consequences—much like the destruction of the Belmar Triangle, Santa Monica’s historic Black neighborhood, in the 1950s.

Community Impact
Under SB 79, developers can demolish low-rise, rent-controlled apartments to construct 7- to 8- story luxury units, by passing local zoning, height, parking, and setback limits. This will:
 Displace long-term, elderly, disabled, and low-income residents  Reduce the net supply of affordable housing
 Erase community character built over generations
 Prioritize developer profits over community preservation Santa Monica’s Preserving Our Diversity (POD) program supports low-income seniors in rent-controlled housing. But SB 79 makes these units ripe for demolition, threatening to displace these senior residents.

What’s at Stake in Wilmont
 Over 1,300 rent-controlled units in Wilmont are at risk  These units represent more than 40% of rented households in the neighborhood  Many residents are seniors, disabled, or long-time tenants in modest, affordable apartments Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 5 Instead of incentivizing demolition, the State should be reinforcing local preservation programs like POD and Right to Return ordinances. The true path to affordability lies in protecting existing affordable housing—not incentivizing speculative redevelopment.

A Developer Windfall, Not Housing Justice
SB 79 + SDB delivers significant upzoning (a public subsidy) to developers with little in return. This is a onesided giveaway that:
 Encourages speculative real estate purchases
 Rewards demolition over preservation
 Undermines democratically approved Housing Elements
 Ignores community-driven affordability standards i.e., Santa Monica’s Proposition R passed in 1990 A recent Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco study
(https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5181312) found that housing prices are driven more by the income of new residents than by supply, casting doubt on the foundational premise of SB 79: that upzoning alone addresses affordability. Market-rate density in high-demand areas accelerates displacement.

Our Request
Please vote NO on endorsing SB 79. Instead, we urge you to:
 Continue supporting preservation-based solutions like the POD program  Propose amendments that require 1:1 replacement of rent-controlled units  Advocate for affordability percentages aligned with Proposition R (30%)  Reinforce certified local Housing Elements, not override them Wilmont is a thriving and inclusive community of renters, seniors, families, and small property owners. We ask the City Council to protect what works—diverse, affordable, community-rooted housing—and reject what threatens to displace it.

This bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to pass through.

Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why should the City Council endorse something that is so destructive to our whole city, especially with respect to rent control? If we have all new buildings we will lose rent control, displace renters and gentrify the city so we lose our diversity as well. We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please oppose this type of zoning in our city and SB 79.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 6 Many thanks,
Board of Directors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 7 David Yakobson
From: Cindy Mollo <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 10:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Cynthia Mollo
2677 Centinela Avenue
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 8 David Yakobson
From: Charles Gibson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill that threatens the character of Santa Monica—especially Sunset Park—by allowing 5–7 story multi-unit apartment buildings in our R1 and R2 neighborhoods. It effectively overrides local zoning, placing tall structures beside single-family homes on quiet streets.

This bill would rapidly transform Sunset Park into an urban jungle, raising land prices and benefiting developers— without requiring affordability. Santa Monica’s modest affordability mandate is separate from the bill, and triggers a “state density bonus” that permits even taller buildings.

Both Democratic chairs of the committees it passed have opposed the bill. Senator Ben Allen recently criticized it as too “one-size-fits-all.”
Why would the City Council support legislation so damaging to our community? Santa Monica has already made significant progress on market-rate housing. SB79 would only add more of it—at the cost of our residents and our city’s identity.

We must stop ceding local control. Please oppose Councilmember Zwick’s efforts to promote this misguided zoning.

Thank you,
Charles Gibson
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 9 David Yakobson
From: Ivana Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Ivana and Darko Suvak
2666 32nd street
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 10 David Yakobson
From: Staci Weiss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
STACI VERK 323.363.1456
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 11 David Yakobson
From: Staci Weiss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
[YOUR NAME]
STACI VERK 323.363.1456
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 12 David Yakobson
From: Cydney Kirschbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Cydney and Kenneth Kirschbaum
Cydney Kirschbaum
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 13 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:02 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: SM Forward Letter -- Support City Council Items 12.A, 4.J, 10.A, and 16.E

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

May 11, 2025
Subject: Support City Council Items 12.A, 4.J, 10.A, and 16.E Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Santa Monica Forward strongly supports Item 12.A updating zoning ordinance and city code, item 4.J, authorizing the city to write in support of SB79, 10.A, establishing an Entertainment Zone ordinance, and 16.E on Pier concerts on the 5.13.25 agenda. Further, we have specific recommendations for enhancing the proposal under 12.A below.

12.A
Enhancing the production of housing across Santa Monica is an urgent priority, and the city should move to facilitate administrative approvals for all sites, greater production of ADUs, and the creation of duplexes and quad-plexes via lot splits. Further, council should direct adjustments to staff proposals on ADUs, zoning density alignment, and ARB procedure as described in the following paragraphs.

Administrative Approval: Current timelines to approve new developments are taking too long, and blocking the creation of housing which the city desperately needs. Council should approve the change in ordinance to allow parcels over 1 acre in size to use administrative approval. Further, council should seek ways to streamline and reduce the time to permitting.

ADUs: Council should support changes to ADU minimum and maximum size limits, as well as the increase in number of permitted ADUs & JADUs on existing multifamily parcels. Further, council should eliminate the limitation that no more ADUs are created than existing units on a parcel, which inhibits the improvement of existing duplexes and triplexes in a way that encourages their preservation as rent controlled housing. Council should also eliminate owner-occupancy requirements for JADUs in order to enable their creation.

Lot Splits & Duplexes: The elimination of owner-occupancy requirements and limitations on redevelopment of vacant parcels will help to increase housing in high opportunity neighborhoods, and council must vote to pass Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 14 it. Council should also support increases to FAR and reductions in constraints to facilitate new projects, as recommended by Staff.

LUCE and Zoning Density Alignment: The implementation of density limits is an antiquated approach to zoning which reinforces segregation by encouraging fewer, larger units that are not affordable to middle and lower income residents. Santa Monica should use this opportunity to improve the way it zones by moving to formbased zoning centering on FAR, height, and setbacks. Form-based zoning focuses on making sure that new buildings are compatible with their surroundings, rather than restricting the number of residents who can make Santa Monica their home. As staff notes, the proposed density requirements will continue to lock our residential neighborhoods in amber, entirely blocking new housing production.

Adjustment to Section 9.55.120 on the Architectural Review Board: Council should reject this adjustment to ordinance, and clarify instead that the scheduling of a review by the ARB counts towards the meeting limit, and reduce the meeting limit to 2 from 3. As Staff demonstrates in the Administrative Approval Timelines analysis, ARB approval is a significant drag on the permitting of new housing. Council should aim to reduce timelines for ARB approval, not extend them by allowing the ARB to delay timelines by not discussing items.

Item 4.J:

SB79 is crucial to addressing California’s housing crisis and improving the lives of Santa Monica’s residents, workers, and community members. This bill would direct new housing to exactly where it should be located - within walking distance of high quality transit, like the E Line. As a smaller city within LA County which is aiming to do its part, Santa Monica cannot solve its housing crisis on its own. That’s why supporting statewide upzoning bills is crucial.

Please note that City Staff’s analysis of the locations affected by SB79 appears to incorrectly include bus stops along Wilshire, Santa Monica, Pico, and Main Street that do not meet SB79’s requirements for bus rapid transit according to Public Resources Code section 21064.3 and section 21060.2. Far less of Santa Monica would be subject to SB79 than staff’s analysis indicates as a result.

SB79 effectively walks a fine line to do right on several issues:
 Location of New Housing: SB79 is limited to within ½ mile of BRT and rail transit stops, which includes locations that are very well served. These are not merely streets with a bus, but locations where that bus line has full time dedicated lanes and 15 minute peak service.  Displacement: Tenants have rights as dictated by the Housing Accountability Act of 2019 (SB330) and thus the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, as noted by the Senate Local Government Bill Analysis. These protections are considered sufficiently robust for upzoning programs undertaken by cities themselves, and include Santa Monica’s required relocation payments to tenants for no-fault evictions.  Below Market Rate Housing: Developments are subject to Santa Monica’s inclusionary zoning ordinance, and are required to provide below market rate housing in order to qualify for benefits of the State Density Bonus program or streamlining under SB35/SB423.  Height & Density: SB79 is straightforward in defining the height and density which projects can achieve when city zoning is less permissive. Projects are not subject to increases in height under State Density Bonus.

Some Californians are opposed to SB79 and have lobbied their cities to also oppose. They believe the scale of their cities was perfect when it made room to accommodate them, but they don’t want changes that would allow the next generation similar opportunities. We should prioritize people over buildings. The housing crisis has grown out of control, and tens of thousands of Californians are living on our streets. It’s time for Santa Monica to take a stance in favor of ending our housing crisis.

Thank you,
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 15 Santa Monica Forward
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen, Co-Chairs
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 16 David Yakobson
From: Mary Duprey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 7:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]; Dan Hall; Council Mailbox; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Mary Duprey
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 17 David Yakobson
From: Patty McCollim <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 7:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Richard Sproul
& Patty McCollim
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 18 David Yakobson
From: Diane Sabatini <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 6:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, This one is especially objectionable!
SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Diane Sabatini
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 19 Diane Sabatini | 1801 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405|
(c) 310.804.9811
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 20 David Yakobson
From: Darlene Vogel <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 6:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Darlene Vogel
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 21 David Yakobson
From: S V <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 5:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Sharon Cunningham
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 22 David Yakobson
From: MARILYN HARRIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 4:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Marilyn Harris
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 23 David Yakobson
From: Dominique Chausse <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am compelled to write that SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? I do not understand!
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Dominique Chausse
30-yr resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 24 David Yakobson
From: Jesus Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Jesus Gonzalez
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 25 David Yakobson
From: Robert Posek <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Robert Posek
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 26 David Yakobson
From: Jon Gibson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multiunit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city. Thank you, Jonathan Gibson Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 27 David Yakobson
From: Michael Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a deeply misguided housing bill. It will be harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood without achieving its purported aims.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Michael Fisher
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 28 David Yakobson
From: Margery Kratz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Margery Kratz
1205 Grant Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
———————————
Margery Kratz
310.463.4129 Cell
310.450.5461 Home
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 29 David Yakobson
From: Emily Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
E. Davidson, Sunset Park Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 30 David Yakobson
From: Emily Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Emily Davidson
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 31 David Yakobson
From: Tom Richards <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Tom Richards
2913 tenth st #1
Santa Monica 90405
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 32 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Dalila Fuentes
35 yr resident Sunset Park
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 33 David Yakobson
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Janet Tunick
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 34 David Yakobson
From: Margaret Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
[YOUR NAME]
Dr Margaret Rubin
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 35 David Yakobson
From: DARKO SUVAK <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Ivana and Darko Suvak
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 36 David Yakobson
From: Darko Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Darko Suvak
32nd st
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 37 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Ofer Grossman
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 38 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multiunit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city. Thank you, Phyllis Chavez, Sunset Park Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 39 David Yakobson
From: Mathew Millen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 6:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: May 13/ Opposition to Item 4J
Attachments: METRO5.pdf

EXTERNAL
The Council should OPPOSE SB 79. Why is the Council supporting SB79 ? so LA Metro can 1) eliminate the commuter parking lot at 17th and Colorado and 2) and build 375 UNITS OF LOW INCOME HOUSING INCLUDING 100 units of Homeless housing for LA County Homeless ADJACENT TO A CEMENT PLANT.

Stop dumping low income housing in the historically segregated Pico Neighborhood, that perpetuates segregation in violation of Fair Housing laws and will endanger the health of the tenants living next to a cement plant.

Mathew Millen
Pico Neighborhood Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 40 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 10:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; Elaine Polachek
Subject: City Council 5/13 agenda item 4-J -- Support for SB-79 -- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
May 9, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 5/13/25 agenda item 4-J -- Support for SB-79
I urge the City Council NOT to send a letter of support for SB-79.

To begin with, there's no affordability requirement.

For the city as a whole, it appears that everywhere between Montana Avenue and Ocean Park Blvd. will be affected.

For the Sunset Park neighborhood, due to the east-west #7 bus line on Pico Blvd., and the northsouth #3 bus line on Lincoln Blvd., most of our neighborhood would also be affected.

While much of Sunset Park is zoned R-1, half of our housing units are actually in multifamily buildings, and I've read that approximately 3,500 apartments in Sunset Park are rent-controlled.

This will displace long-term, elderly, disabled, and low-income renters in our neighborhood.

What good will the city's POD program (Preserving Our Diversity) do these residents if their buildings are sold out from under them?
SB-79 encourages speculative real estate purchases, rewards demolition over preservation, undermines democratically approved Housing Elements, and ignores democratically approved affordability requirements such a Prop R, which was passed by Santa Monica voters in 1990 and requires that 30% of new apartments be affordable.

A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that housing prices are driven more by the income of new residents than by supply.

So, just using SB-79 to incentivize the construction of more and more market rate housing will NOT bring down rents.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 41 SB-79 will help developers, but it WON'T HELP people who are currently struggling with spending 50% of their income on rent.

Again, I urge the City Council NOT to send a letter of support for SB-79.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 42 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 12:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Jennifer Taylor
Subject: Re: May 13, 2025 Council Agenda Item 4J: Residency Requirement for DTSM, Inc. Board Appointments
Attachments: Board Composition Ordinance Opposition Letter.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Lana Negrete, Honorable Council Members, and Esteemed City Staff, The DTSM, Inc. Board strongly opposes the adoption of an ordinance that mandates a fixed number of appointments from any single stakeholder group. This requirement is neither contained in the bylaws of the organization nor is it referenced in the other organizational documents for the district upon which approval of the district was voted upon. Each of the directors, including the directors appointed by the Santa Monica City Council, should be the most qualified individuals for the position, whether they are residents, property owners, employees, or holders of business licenses in the City of Santa Monica.

Maintaining flexibility will allow the Council to appoint Board members with the broadest range of experience, insight, and expertise necessary to effectively support and advance the goals of DTSM, Inc.

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 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) May 8, 2025
Ms. Lana Negrete, Mayor
and Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: May 13, 2025 Council Agenda Item 4J: Residency Requirement for DTSM, Inc. Board Appointments

Dear Mayor Lana Negrete, Honorable Council Members, and Esteemed City Staff, The DTSM, Inc. Board strongly opposes the adoption of an ordinance that mandates a fixed number of appointments from any single stakeholder group. This requirement is neither contained in the bylaws of the organization nor is it referenced in the other organizational documents for the district upon which approval of the district was voted upon. Each of the directors, including the directors appointed by the Santa Monica City Council, should be the most qualified individuals for the position, whether they are residents, property owners, employees, or holders of business licenses in the City of Santa Monica. Maintaining flexibility will allow the Council to appoint Board members with the broadest range of experience, insight, and expertise necessary to effectively support and advance the goals of DTSM, Inc.

Sincerely,

Andrew Thomas, CEO
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
cc: DTSM, Inc. Board of Directors
Elaine Polachek, City Manager
Jennifer Taylor, Economic Development Director
1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected] Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) [CITY LETTERHEAD]
Hon. Anna Caballero, Chair
Senate Appropriations Committee
California State Legislature
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SUPPORT FOR SENATE BILL 79 (WIENER) WITH CALL TO ACTION TO FURTHER

PROTECT VULNERABLE RESIDENTS
Dear Hon. Chair Caballero and Members of the Appropriations Committee, On behalf of the Santa Monica City Council, we write to endorse Senate Bill 79, which takes important steps toward expanding housing near transit and advancing the State’s climate and equity goals. We are in a statewide housing crisis that demands bold, systems-level responses.

SB 79 is one such response, one that recognizes that the status quo of exclusionary zoning and underutilized land near transit is incompatible with California’s goals for housing access, affordability, and climate action. By allowing greater housing density near major transit corridors, this bill will unlock new housing opportunities where infrastructure already exists and where residents can live without being car-dependent.

SB 79 will particularly benefit high-opportunity communities, like Santa Monica, where job access, walkability, and high-performing schools coexist with historically restrictive land use policies and extreme housing scarcity. The bill also builds on recent legislative progress by further streamlining infill development and empowering transit agencies to activate their land for housing—tools that will be essential if California is to meet its climate goals and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

We are grateful for Senator Wiener’s leadership in authoring this legislation and his willingness to engage with cities like ours as the bill progresses.

While we support this legislation, we also call on the legislature to further strengthen SB 79 and related future legislation in the following ways:
● Strengthen anti-displacement measures. We urge the Legislature to consider enhanced protections for long-term renters and sensitive communities, building on the foundation of the Housing Crisis Act (Government Code Section 66300 et seq.). Without strengthened safeguards, the well-intentioned goals of transit-oriented development risk exacerbating displacement in high-opportunity neighborhoods. ● More robust inclusionary housing. We also encourage the addition of opportunities to increase affordable housing production within SB 79. It is critical that new development spurred by this bill include meaningful inclusionary housing so that lower-income households can access the benefits of high-quality transit and walkable communities.

Santa Monica remains committed to addressing the housing crisis in a way that centers equity, environmental sustainability, and livability. We share the Legislature’s urgency and appreciate Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.f
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: Presentation Item (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) [CITY LETTERHEAD]
that SB 79 aims to unlock more housing near major transit stops. With the additions outlined above, the bill would be even better positioned to deliver on California’s promise of inclusive and resilient communities.

Respectfully submitted,
[Name]
[Name]
[Name]
[Name]
etc.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.f
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: Presentation Item (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.K
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Council Rules of Procedure Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution amending the Council Rules of Procedure to account for posting of agendas on City wayfinding kiosks, modify rules for public input, and make other changes to clarify and amend the procedural rules for the preparation for and conduct of Council meetings.

Executive Summary
The City Attorney and City Clerk have prepared the proposed changes to the Council Rules to identify City kiosks as the location for City meeting agendas to be posted, and to make adjustments to the rules regarding public input, particularly when a large number of speakers wish to speak during a particular public input section of the agenda.

Background
New Agenda Posting Location
Currently, the City Clerk posts hard copies of meeting agendas on the front windows at the SMI room. If adopted, City meeting agendas will now be posted on all City wayfinding kiosks. This is consistent with the requirements of the Brown Act, as the California Attorney General has interpreted the requirement that agendas be posted at a location “freely accessible to the public” may be satisfied by posting on a touch screen electronic kiosk accessible to the public without charge 24-hours a day. While the agenda will be accessible on all City kiosks, the primary posting location will be the kiosk right outside City Hall, on the corner of Main Street and Olympic Drive. Agenda

4.K
Packet Pg. 1037
2 of 3
materials in accessible formats will still be available in the Clerk’s Office upon request, and all materials will continue to be available on the City’s website.

Adjustments to Rules for Public Input
Earlier this year, the Council imposed time limits on itself when speaking on agenda items, in the interest of expediting meetings. Council also has the authority to adopt reasonable regulations on public input, including limits on the time permitted per speaker. The proposed changes are content neutral and designed to be fairly imposed regardless of a speaker’s viewpoint. The limits will allow all members of the public to be heard, while also expediting the meeting to have the public’s business heard in a timely and efficient manner.

Proposed changes:
• If more than 25 speakers are registered to speak for any public input section, the amount of time per speaker shall be reduced to one minute per speaker for that public input section. This does not apply to noticed public hearings or quasijudicial items. • Late speakers will only be permitted to speak for one minute if approved by five votes of the Council.
• Members of the public will no longer be permitted to donate their time to another speaker.

Telephonic Public Comment
Members of the public may now address the Council by telephone. They must register no later than 5:00 p.m. the last business day before the meeting, and they will be heard after all in-person speakers are heard.

In addition, the attached resolution makes a few miscellaneous changes to the Rules:
• Deletes the intention that public action items start at 7:00 pm or later. • Reorders public comment on Special Agenda Items to be heard before the Special Agenda items themselves.
• Identifies the Mayor as the official signatory on behalf of the Council on ordinances, resolutions, and contracts, consistent with current and past practice.

4.K
Packet Pg. 1038
3 of 3
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate fiscal impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action.

Prepared By: Katie Doerr, Deputy City Attorney III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Council Rules-Reso
B. Written Comments

4.K
Packet Pg. 1039
1 City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. ____________(CCS)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MONICA AMENDING THE RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR

THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NUMBER 11649 (CCS)
WHEREAS, the Council desires to clarify and amend some procedural Rules for the preparation for and conduct of Council meetings.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council Rules of Order and Procedure are hereby amended to read as follows:

RULES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
RULE 1. RULES OF ORDER.

These Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of all City Council meetings, unless superseded or prohibited by federal, state, or local law. To the extent a matter is not covered by these Rules, the procedures of the City Council shall be governed by the latest revised edition of Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules shall be subordinate to all applicable laws and these rules to the extent they are inconsistent. These rules also apply to the Council sitting as or in combination with another body, such as the Housing Authority Board, Redevelopment Successor Agency, Financing Authority, or Parking Authority, and to all boards and commissions.

The City Council rules, or any one thereof, may be suspended by a vote of twothirds of the Councilmembers present.

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 2 RULE 2. TIME AND PLACE FOR HOLDING REGULAR MEETINGS.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 611 of the Santa Monica City Charter, the City Council establishes the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month as the days for holding regular meetings of the City Council. The Council may amend the meeting calendar to add or delete a regular Council meeting. The regular meeting shall commence at 5:30 p.m. However, if it is determined by the Mayor, City Manager, and City Clerk that a Council meeting is expected to be lengthy, and all Councilmembers are available, as may be noticed by the City Clerk, a regular Council meeting may commence earlier than 5:30 p.m. to allow for closed session and/or special agenda items to be heard then. It is the intention of the City Council that all other Agenda public action items shall commence no earlier than 7:00 p.m., following the Closed Session, unless noticed otherwise on the Agenda. If it is expected that Closed Session will require more than 90 minutes to complete, and if all Councilmembers are available, a separate special meeting to complete Closed Session shall be considered. If any such Tuesday falls on any day designated by law by the City Council as a day for public feast, Thanksgiving or holiday, such regular meeting shall be held on the date of the regular meeting next following said Tuesday at the hour heretofore fixed or at such other day as may be fixed. The City Council Chamber in City Hall is established as the place for holding the City Council’s regular meetings.

RULE 3. QUORUM AND ACTION
In accordance with Section 614 of the Santa Monica City Charter, 4 Councilmembers shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Except as otherwise provided in the Charter, or other law or these rules, action shall be taken by a

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 3 majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council, that is, at least 4 votes, unless a higher number is required. However, in the case of a quasi-judicial hearing, if only 4 Councilmembers are participating, the applicant or appellant shall be entitled to request and receive a continuance of the hearing, until such time as 5 Councilmembers are participating.

Whenever any Councilmember questions the presence of a quorum, the presiding officer shall forthwith direct the City Clerk to call the roll, each Councilmember shall respond when that Councilmember’s name is called, and the Clerk shall announce the result. Such proceedings shall be without debate, but no Councilmember who is speaking may be interrupted by a question as to the presence of a quorum.

The City Council may also establish standing committees and subcommittees of its members to address designated areas of City business on the Council's behalf and may establish ad hoc committees to formulate reports or recommendations on particular matters. Ad hoc committees must provide quarterly updates to Council, which shall be included on the Agenda by the City Clerk.

RULE 4. MEETINGS TO BE PUBLIC - EXCEPTION FOR CLOSED SESSIONS.

As required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (the “Brown Act”), California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq., all regular, adjourned regular, and special meetings of the City Council shall be public, provided, however, the City Council may meet in a Closed Session from which the public is excluded, for those purposes authorized by the Brown Act.

No Councilmember, employee of the City, or any other person present during a Closed Session of the City Council shall disclose to any person the content or substance

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 4 of any communication that took place during the Closed Session unless the City Council specifically authorizes the disclosure by majority vote or unless the disclosure is required by law.

Any required public announcements following closed session shall be made by the City Attorney immediately upon the Council convening in open session following closed session. Council direction to provide authority to settle a claim or lawsuit shall not be reported out until the settlement is signed and final.

RULE 5. AGENDA.

The City Clerk shall prepare the Agenda under the direction of the City Manager as follows:
(a) The City Manager shall consult with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore in the preparation of the Agenda.
(b) Other than the City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney (and/or their designees), Mayor, and Mayor Pro Tem, no person shall attend an Agenda preparation meeting without invitation of the City Manager.
(c) The Agenda and all available supporting documents shall be delivered to Councilmembers on the Tuesday preceding the Tuesday City Council meeting to which it pertains or as soon thereafter as possible.
(d) The City Manager may direct that any matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction be placed upon the Agenda. The City Attorney may place items on the Agenda affecting the City Attorney’s Office or litigation closed session. Any Councilmember requesting a substantive discussion on an open session Agenda item shall do so by initiating a “16 item” first to obtain Council direction (see Rule 6(y)). Councilmembers shall

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 5 submit Councilmember Agenda items to the City Manager as follows: (1) for regular meetings, by noon on Monday, 8 days prior to the Council meeting, to ensure matters will be agendized for the following Tuesday; and (2) for special meetings, by 3:00 p.m. on the day at least 2 days before the day of the special meeting. Subject to Brown Act requirements, items submitted after 3:00 p.m. on the specified day will be agendized for the next regular meeting, unless the Councilmember has identified an urgency requiring that the matter be added to the current Agenda. The City Manager shall be responsible for submission of real estate, labor (except for City Attorney and City Clerk evaluations), security, and emergency closed sessions; the City Attorney shall be responsible for submission of litigation closed session items, including amicus participation items. The City Attorney shall verify whether the requested closed session is a proper topic for closed session pursuant to the Brown Act before the item is published on an Agenda, and if not, it shall be omitted.

Proposed 16 Items shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and then the language modified, if necessary, to ensure the Item requests a policy direction or action that is lawful before being placed on the Agenda, and by the City Manager, and then the language modified, if necessary, to ensure the Item requests policy direction or action that is feasible, that is, reasonably possible given available resources. In the event there are concerns that the request is potentially unlawful or infeasible, then the City Attorney and City Manager shall work with the sponsor(s) to frame the request so that it is lawful and feasible, and still as closely as possible reflects the desired outcome of the sponsor(s).

Once a particular 16 Item is heard and rejected the same or substantially similar item may not be placed on a subsequent Agenda for reconsideration for 12 months,

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 6 unless it is sponsored by one of the Councilmembers on the prevailing side previously. (See also Rule 12(g) – Motion to Reconsider.)
Councilmember items placed on the Agenda may be removed or amended by the sponsor(s), with the City Manager’s approval, no later than noon on Thursday, 5 days prior to the Council meeting. Staff sponsored items may be removed from the Agenda (or postponed) by the City Manager at any time prior to the start of the applicable Council meeting and shall be announced by the City Clerk following Roll Call. The City Attorney may also remove items the City Attorney placed on the Agenda at any time prior to the start of the applicable Council meeting and shall be announced by the City Clerk following Roll Call.

Councilmember items may only be combined with other items on the Agenda by a vote of the Council. A Councilmember who wishes to combine the Councilmember’s item with another item on the Agenda may direct that the following language be included with the Agenda item: “This item may be considered with Item __.” The City Manager may combine staff items on the Agenda to ensure the public’s business is handled efficiently and conveniently.

Proposed alternatives, other than minor variations, to items or portions of items on the Agenda shall be submitted in writing to the City Clerk for distribution no later than noon the day prior to the Council meeting; any alternatives submitted after the deadline may be considered by the Council only by unanimous consent, provided they are Brown Act compliant; otherwise, the amendment along with the main item may be considered at a subsequent meeting pursuant to an approved motion to continue. (e) The City Clerk shall post the Agenda as required by the Brown Act. Copies

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 7 of the Agenda shall be posted on all City wayfinding kiosks, with the kiosk located in front of City Hall at the corner of Main Street and windows of the Santa Monica Institute room, located at 330 Olympic Drive, Santa Monica, California 90401 serving as the primary posting location. Should this kiosk be out of service, the kiosk located in front of Tongva Park at Ocean Avenue and Colorado Avenue shall serve as the backup posting location.

Agenda material will be available in accessible format on the City website and in other alternative formats from the City Clerk upon request. The City Clerk shall maintain on file in the Clerk’s office declarations establishing compliance with the posting requirements. (f) No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted Agenda unless the item is added to the Agenda in the manner required by the Brown Act. (g) Matters directed to be placed on the Agenda at the direction of Councilmembers shall be listed on the Agenda in the order of receipt by the City Clerk. (h) Written requests to the City Council shall be received and opened by the City Clerk and referred to the City Manager or the Manager’s designee and either shall be transmitted to the appropriate board, commission, or staff member, or shall be placed on the Agenda if City Council consideration is deemed appropriate by the Mayor or City Manager. Written requests being agendized shall be scheduled for City Council consideration at the earliest convenient meeting, taking into consideration the length and content of meeting Agendas. Members of the public submitting written requests shall be advised of how their request is being handled. Councilmembers shall receive copies of those written requests that are not agendized. Agendized communications shall be listed on the Agenda in order of receipt. No communication shall be placed on an Agenda if it contains material that:

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 8 (1) Is profane.
(2) Is potentially slanderous or libelous.
(3) Advocates or opposes the candidacy of any person or party for any elective office.
(4) Is primarily an advertisement or promotion or has as a substantial purpose the advancement of any cause the major benefit of which is private and not public.

Members of the public submitting written requests to the City Council are encouraged to limit their submissions to one per meeting.
(i) All electronic presentation materials intended for use at a City Council meeting, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy document projected by an overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of a City Council meeting. For clarity, this rule shall not apply to a current member of a board or commission speaking on a matter within the purview of the board or commission on which the member sits.
(j) Any Councilmember or the City Manager may place an item on the Council Agenda to present a report from a board or commission that is within the board or commission’s subject matter authority that was duly approved by the board or commission. The request and the written or electronic materials to be distributed or displayed at the meeting must be provided to the City Clerk, the City Manager’s Office, and the sponsoring Department Staff Liaison by 3 p.m. Friday, 11 days before the Council meeting. When heard, the speaker for the board or commission shall be permitted up to 10 minutes to present, unless the Council by majority vote allows for a different time. The

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 9 Council may question the speaker concerning the report and presentation. The speaker shall have an opportunity to respond to comments by the City Manager and Staff. The City Manager and Staff may also provide information concerning the presentation. The presentation will not be considered an action item, but the City Manager may combine it with an action item on the Agenda, and the Council may provide direction concerning the matters raised in the presentation. Action may be taken on matters raised in the presentation, subject to Brown Act compliance.
(k) Any Councilmember planning on being absent from a Council meeting or a portion of a meeting may submit written statements on a topic on the Agenda to the City Clerk at least by noon the day of the Council meeting. The City Clerk shall publish the written statement prior to the beginning of the meeting, and the City Clerk shall read the statement into the record at the meeting. This procedure shall not apply to quasi-judicial matters, wherein Councilmembers ordinarily shall not communicate about the matter prior to conclusion of a public hearing.

RULE 6. CATEGORIES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The business of the City Council shall be conducted in the order and manner specified below. The order may be changed by a majority vote of those present. The following is the order of business:
(a) Call to Order.
(b) Salute to the Flag and Land Acknowledgement.
(c) Roll Call.
(d) Levine Act disclosures.
(e) City Clerk Agenda announcements and Agenda Procedural motions.

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 10 (f) General Public Input and Comment on Special Agenda Items. Allows members of the public to address the City Council on Special Agenda Items and matters not otherwise on the Agenda that are within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction.

State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the Agenda. As a result, no formal action may be taken on any matter under this item. (g) Special Agenda Items. This item includes proclamations, commendations, introductions of special guests, special meetings, appointments to the City Council and presentations and reports by other non-City public entities or legislative bodies. A Councilmember may place a proclamation or commendation on the agenda by submitting a request to the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee. No more than 2 proclamations or commendations shall be placed on any one agenda, unless an additional item is particularly time sensitive.
(h) Public Comment for Special Agenda, Closed Session and Consent Calendar Items Only. No public comment is permitted on second readings of ordinances or continued items.
(i) Consent Calendar. The consent calendar shall consist of the approval of minutes of previous meetings and those other items such as contracts and routine resolutions and ordinances that do not necessitate a separate public hearing and which are determined in the Agenda preparation process to be relatively non-controversial.

Ordinances for second reading and adoption may be placed on the consent calendar if approved by a majority at first reading. The consent calendar shall be considered as one item regardless of the number of matters appearing on it and may be approved by a single vote. The title to the individual consent items need not be read unless a request to do so

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 11 is made by any Councilmember. Members of the public shall have no more than one opportunity to address the City Council concerning any and all items on the consent calendar. Members of the public shall be heard prior to City Council consideration of the consent calendar. Councilmembers may request to have individual matters removed from the consent calendar so that they may be heard on those matters. All matters remaining on the consent calendar may be approved by a single vote. Any items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered separately in the order of their appearance on the Agenda. Removed items may be heard immediately following the consent calendar or may be heard after the City Council concludes Closed Session or Study Session.

Councilmembers shall notify the City Manager by 5 p.m. the day before the meeting that an item may be pulled for discussion or questions to Staff and request a presentation of an item on the Consent Calendar, or Staff will not be present for the item to make a presentation or answer questions. When the Clerk calls the Consent Calendar, the Clerk shall identify those items that Councilmembers have indicated they wanted to pull (by 5 p.m. the day before) and which Councilmembers have made the requests. Only those items shall be pulled for discussion, unless a Councilmember makes an additional request following the Clerk’s announcement.
(j) Closed Session.
(k) Reports and any Additional Public Actions from Closed Session. (l) City Manager’s Report.
(m) Councilmember Travel Announcements.
(n) Mayor’s highlight.
(o) Public Comment on Remaining Agenda Items. Allows members of the

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 12 public to have the opportunity to speak on items on the Agenda before or during the City Council’s Consideration of the item, except where a public hearing is required by law. (p) Study Session. During Study Sessions staff will present information regarding a complex matter that will be subject to Council deliberation and decisions in the future. No City Council action will be recommended or taken as part of the Study Session, other than to give direction to prepare and return with Agenda items in the future. (q) Continued Items. This item includes agendized items of a previous City Council meeting not considered at such meeting. The City Council may vote by a majority of its members to have a carry-over item placed on a subsequent Agenda as a continued item. If public comment on a continued item was concluded at the initial meeting, it shall not be repeated. Nonetheless, continued 16 Items shall be heard along with 16 items for the current meeting.
(r) Administrative Proceedings. This item includes proceedings requiring the City Council to make a quasi-judicial decision concerning an individual application or appeal.
(s) Ordinances.
(1) Second Reading and Adoption. No public comment is permitted on second readings.
(2) Introduction and First Reading.
(t) Staff Administrative Items. This category will include policy matters to be considered by the City Council or at joint meetings of the City Council, Parking Authority, Housing Authority, the Public Financing Authority and/or Redevelopment Successor Agency.

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 13 (u) Public Hearings. This item consists of public hearings required by specific provisions of law. Public comment on a public hearing item shall be taken at the time the item is heard following the Staff presentation of the item. (v) Reports of Boards and Commissions. Boards and commissions that may present reports under this item and pursuant to rule 5(j) include, but are not limited to, all City boards, commissions, and task forces. Reports may also be provided by the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., and Santa Monica Travel and Tourism. Note this subsection provides for the location or timing of these items if placed on the Agenda, not the authority to place items on the Agenda, which is addressed elsewhere in these rules.
(w) Resolutions. A resolution will be considered under this item only if its substance makes extensive public input advisable, or if it should be considered after another item on the Agenda, otherwise the resolution will be considered on the Consent Calendar. No resolution may be placed on an agenda regarding international affairs, except for items of support or condolences for natural disasters or similar tragedies involving Santa Monica’s sister cities.
(x) Written Communication. This item allows the City Council to consider issues raised by written submissions from the public.
(y) Councilmember Requests for Discussion (16 items) and Closed Session Items. This category consists of Councilmember requested Agenda items to provide policy direction. Action and direction may occur on these items to the extent specified in the Agenda item. Councilmembers shall submit proposed Agenda items to the City Manager, who shall consult Councilmember sponsors, the City Attorney, City

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 14 Clerk, and Staff as needed. No Councilmember requested resolutions or ordinances should be developed or drafted until a majority of the Council gives direction to the City Manager and/or the City Attorney. The City Manager will work with the Councilmember to decide if the item will be placed on the Agenda or address them in other ways.

Resolutions for advocacy would be an exception.

Councilmember requests for real estate and labor closed session items shall be submitted to the City Manager, and for litigation, including amicus participation, to the City Attorney.

The City Manager and City Attorney shall notify one another when Agenda item requests are made by Councilmembers.

With the exception of appointments to boards, commissions, and other bodies, all Councilmember discussion “16 items” on the Agenda shall be considered as one item, similar to the consent calendar, regardless of the number of matters and may be approved by a single vote. The title to the individual items need not be read unless a request to do so is made by any Councilmember. When the 16 items are called, Councilmembers may request to have individual matters removed for separate consideration. All remaining matters may be approved by a single vote. Any items removed shall be considered separately in the order of their appearance on the Agenda.

A Councilmember may place a 16 item on an agenda to consider a formal censure of a Councilmember for violation of the law, local ordinance, common law conflict of interest, Council rule, or resolution. Due process shall be provided, including notice of the allegations and an opportunity to oppose the accusation.

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 15 RULE 7. PREPARATION OF MINUTES.

The City Clerk shall have exclusive responsibility for preparation of the Minutes, and any directions for corrections in the Minutes shall be made only by majority vote of the City Council.

RULE 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

Minutes of a City Council meeting may be approved on the Consent Calendar without reading if the City Clerk has previously furnished each Councilmember with a copy and unless a reading is ordered by a majority vote of the City Council.

RULE 9. MAYOR AS PRESIDING OFFICER.
(a) The Mayor shall be the Presiding Officer at all meetings of the City Council.

In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall preside. In the absence of both the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, the City Clerk shall call the City Council to order and a temporary Presiding Officer shall be elected by the Councilmembers present to serve until the arrival of the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore or until adjournment. (b) The Mayor shall be the official signatory on behalf of the Council for all Council approved ordinances, resolutions, contracts, proclamations, and letters of support or opposition, and shall promptly sign all documents presented by the City Clerk.

In the Mayor’s absence, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall sign such documents. Signing in an official capacity does not necessarily indicate personal support for the item. (c) Selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore. As required by Charter section 604, the Mayor shall be selected by the Council. The procedure for selection shall be as follows: Beginning in December 2022, the Council shall select the longest continuously serving Councilmember, whether initially elected or appointed, to serve as Mayor for a 1

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 16 year term. Each subsequent December the next longest continuously serving Councilmember shall be selected as Mayor for a 1 year term, then rotating each December to select the Mayor in order of the next longest serving Councilmember. If two or more Councilmembers were elected at the same election, the Councilmember receiving the higher number of votes shall be considered as having served longer for purposes of this provision. If two or more Councilmembers were initially appointed to serve at the same time, then when they each may first become eligible to be selected as Mayor, a coin flip shall decide who shall be considered as having served longer for purposes of this provision. The Mayor Pro Tempore may be selected by simple majority vote without regard to this provision. This provision shall not be subject to a suspension of the Council Rules, and shall be implemented until duly repealed or amended by the Council.
(d) The term “Vice Mayor” shall not be used in place of the term “Mayor Pro Tempore.”
RULE 10. POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRESIDING OFFICER.
(a) Participation. The Presiding Officer may move, second, and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are imposed upon Councilmembers by these rules, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a Councilmember by reason of acting as the Presiding Officer. (b) Duties. The Presiding Officer shall:
(1) preserve order at all meetings of the City Council; (2) state (or cause to be stated) each question coming before the City Council;

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 17 (3) announce the decisions of the City Council on all subjects; (4) decide all questions of order subject to the right to appeal rulings on questions of order to the entire City Council in accordance with Rule 12(d) below; and
(5) encourage all persons present at the meeting to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy.

RULE 11. SWORN TESTIMONY AND SUBPOENA POWER.

Any Councilmember may request that anyone appearing before the City Council on any matter shall be sworn. On receipt of such a request, all proceedings shall be suspended, and the City Council will immediately vote on whether the individual should be sworn. A majority vote of the Councilmembers present shall determine whether the speaker shall be placed under oath. All oaths will be administered by the City Clerk.

The City Council shall have the power to issue subpoenas as provided in City Charter Section 614.

RULE 12. RULES OF DEBATE.
(a) Getting the Floor. A Councilmember desiring to speak shall gain recognition by the Presiding Officer.
(b) Questions to Staff. Councilmembers desiring to question City staff shall address their questions to the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Clerk, or designated staff. Members of the City staff, after recognition by the Presiding Officer, shall hold the floor until completion of their remarks or until recognition is withdrawn by the Presiding Officer.
(c) Interruptions. A Councilmember who has the floor shall not be interrupted

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 18 when speaking unless the Councilmember called to order by the Presiding Officer, a point of order or a personal privilege is raised by another Councilmember, or the speaker chooses to yield to a question by another Councilmember. If a Councilmember is called to order, that Councilmember shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined. Whenever any person is called to order while speaking, such person shall be in possession of the floor after the question of order is decided, and may proceed with the matter under the discussion within the ruling made on the question of order. (d) Points of Order. The Presiding Officer shall determine all points of order subject to the right of any Councilmember to appeal to the City Council. A speaker having the floor may be interrupted, when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to raise a point of order. Questions concerning procedures or other legal issues may be directed to the City Attorney for legal advice. If an appeal is taken, the question shall be: “Shall the decision of the Presiding Officer be overruled?” The Presiding Officer's decision may be overruled by a two-thirds vote of the Councilmembers then present. The City Attorney may also raise a point of order to provide advice to the Council should there be a concern about procedures, due process, or other legal issues.
(e) Point of Personal Privilege. The right of a Councilmember to address the City Council on a question of personal privilege shall be limited to cases in which the Councilmember’s integrity, character, or motives are questioned, or where the safety or welfare of the City Council is concerned. A speaker having the floor may be interrupted, when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to raise a point of personal privilege. (f) Privilege of Final Comment. The Councilmember moving the introduction or adoption of an ordinance, resolution, or motion, shall have the privilege of speaking

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 19 last on the matter after all other Councilmembers have been given an opportunity to speak.
(g) Motion to Reconsider Legislative Actions. A motion to reconsider any legislative action taken by the City Council may be made only by one of the Councilmembers on the prevailing side and may be seconded by any Councilmember.

Such motion may be made at any time and shall be debatable. A motion by a nonprevailing Councilmember or a request by a member of the public for reconsideration may be made only if one year has passed since the action was taken. (h) Calling for the Question. A question may be called by majority vote of those present. However, neither the moving party nor the party seconding any motion may call for the question, each Councilmember shall be afforded one opportunity to speak on each item before the question is called, and a question may not be called to interrupt or cut off a particular speaker.
(i) Limitation of Debate. Councilmembers shall limit their remarks to the subject under debate. Except for questions raised by another Councilmember to a Councilmember, no Councilmember shall be allowed to speak more than once upon any particular subject until every other Councilmember desiring to do so has spoken. Prior to beginning deliberation, the Council may, by a two-thirds vote of those present, limit the amount of time that each Councilmember may spend stating the Councilmember’s views on a particular Agenda item.
(j) Each Councilmember shall observe a time limit of 10 minutes each to speak on an agenda item, with exceptions for asking questions of the Councilmember(s) who introduced the item (both questioners and respondents) or staff. The 10 minutes may be

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 20 used at once or apportioned across debate of an item. If the proposing Councilmember does not save a portion of their time to avail themselves of their privilege of final comment in accordance with Rule 12, Section (f), the Councilmember forfeits their privilege of final comment. Time limits in this Rule may be extended at any time by a 2/3rds vote of the Councilmembers present, and such an extension shall apply to all Councilmembers, if approved.
(k) Time to speak to a Point of Personal Privilege shall be limited to 1 minute. (l) Time to speak for a Councilmember’s protest statement in opposition to an action shall be limited to 5 minutes.
(m) Time to speak to a proclamation or commendation, excluding the reading of a resolution or certificate, shall be limited to 2 minutes.

RULE 13. PROTEST AGAINST CITY COUNCIL ACTION.

Any Councilmember shall have the right to have the reasons for the Councilmember’s opposition to any action of the City Council entered in the Minutes. Such opposition shall be made in the following manner: “I would like the Minutes to reflect that I opposed this action for the following reasons…” A written submission may be provided to the City Clerk to be included in the record.

RULE 14. DISCLOSURE FOR QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS.

On quasi-judicial matters, Councilmembers shall verbally disclose off-the-record contacts relating to the item, after the item is called and before City Council consideration of the matter. Disclosure shall include the identity of any individual(s) with whom the Councilmember had contact, and the nature of the contact.

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 21 RULE 15. PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
(a) Permitted. Pursuant to the Brown Act, public testimony is permitted on all Agenda items, except ordinances for second reading or as otherwise provided in these rules, and the public shall have an opportunity to comment on any matter that is not on the Agenda but is within the City Council’s jurisdiction. However, members of the public do not have the right to give testimony outside the scope of or unrelated to the Agenda item under consideration. Additionally, members of the public should strive to avoid unduly reiterating their own or others’ testimony.
(b) Registration. Any member of the public wishing to address the City Council regarding any item on the Agenda for public discussion shall register with the City Clerk staff prior to the start of the meeting, if possible. No registrations for public input will be accepted on an item after the input period is closed.
(c) Manner of Addressing the City Council. After being recognized by the Presiding Officer, members of the public addressing the City Council shall go to the podium, state their name and whom they represent, if they represent an organization or other person. Members of the public are encouraged, but not required, to also state their address, neighborhood, or city of residence. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof. After a public hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall address the City Council on the matter under consideration without first securing City Council approval. (d) Written Public Comment. Those wishing to provide public comment are encouraged to submit it in writing via email to be viewed online. For written comments received by noon on the day of the Council meeting, best efforts shall be made to have

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 22 them posted on the Council’s online Agenda. All written comments shall be made part of the public record.
(e) Time Limits. Except on Written Communication, members of the public shall limit their remarks to 2 minutes per comment public input section unless the City Council grants additional time by majority vote; however, except for noticed public hearings or quasi judicial items, if more than 25 speakers are registered to speak during a public input section, the amount of time shall be reduced to 1 minute per speaker during that section. or the City Council reduces this time limit because of the large number of speakers for public comment on the particular item. The order in which members of the public provide remarks will be determined by the City Clerk, to the extent possible giving priority to K-12 students speaking on their own behalf. Persons speaking on another’s written communication and persons submitting late speaker requests, who receive permission to speak shall be limited to 1 minute. Speaker requests are considered late if received after the public input period has been opened. Upon opening the public input section, the City Clerk shall announce approximately how many speakers are registered to speak and the final name registered on the list. Should any other speakers sign up after the stated name and prior to the closing of the public input period, they shall be deemed late and shall be permitted to speak for 1 minute only with a motion approved with 5 votes of the Council. On written communication, those speaking on another’s item may speak only if the person raising the matter appears and testifies. If the person who raises the item does not appear and testify, the matter shall be received and filed and persons wishing to speak on the matter may give their testimony during public input. Members of the public wishing to speak on more than one item shall limit their remarks to a total of 6

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 23 minutes per meeting unless the City Council grants additional time by majority vote. For purposes of Rule 15, any Council meeting that includes special meeting items and/or joint meetings with other entities shall be considered one meeting. A member of the public may allocate time between items in one-minute increments up to 2 minutes. Testimony given as an applicant or appellant does not count toward the 6 minute maximum. A Board or Commission member reporting to the City Council on behalf of a Board or Commission who was duly authorized to speak for the Board or Commission shall be limited to maximum of 5 minutes to speak.
(f) Special Time Limits for Applicants and Appellants. Applicants and appellants on administrative items and public hearings shall limit their remarks to 10 minutes and may reserve some of their time for use for rebuttal at the conclusion of the public hearing. The appellant shall have the opportunity to address the City Council first and last.
(g) Special Time Limits for Special Agenda Items. Public testimony is permitted on the City Manager’s Report and Appointments to the City Council.

Proclamations, commendations, and appearances by special guests are ceremonial items. To ensure adequate time for the Council’s regular business, groups of honorees or guests, who wish to speak, should appoint one or two representatives to speak for them.

Honorees’ time to speak shall be limited to 2 minutes each. (h) Special Assistance for Those Who Cannot Wait to Speak. Members of the public, including those with special needs, who cannot wait to speak on an Agenda item may request assistance from the City Clerk, and a member of the Clerk's office will provide assistance in preparing a written statement of testimony for distribution to the City

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 24 Council.
(i) Extended Time Limits for Speakers Who Require Interpreter. A member of the public who utilizes an interpreter to provide English language translation shall receive twice the time otherwise allotted under these rules. (j) Donating Time to Another Speaker. Donations of time to other speakers may be made only if both the person donating time and the other speaker are physically present at the Council meeting. Except on Public Input, a member of the public, speaking on their own behalf, may donate 2 minutes per Agenda item to another speaker speaking on their own behalf, and a speaker may accept one such donation from another per Agenda item. The speaker and the person donating time shall turn in their chits together, notify the Clerk of the donation, and go to the podium together. The speaker shall state both of their names and state that the speaker is speaking for both. Donated time shall not increase an individual speaker’s total time limit of 6 minutes per meeting. Any request received after the start of the hearing shall be considered late and the donor will not be permitted to donate the donor’s time.
(j)(k) Any electronic presentation materials presented as attachments to written public comment submitted by email for viewing online must be submitted in accordance with the time deadline set forth in Section 15(d) above. Electronic presentation materials will not be accepted in connection with public comment being provided by calling in to the Council meeting. For speakers who will be physically present to provide public comment at the Council meeting, all electronic presentation materials intended for use in connection with the public comment, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 25 document projected by the overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of a City Council meeting. All such electronic presentation materials must be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office and include the City Council meeting date, Agenda item number, and name of the public speaker who, as noted above, will need to be present at the meeting. See also Rule 5(i). Any member of the public choosing to use electronic presentations during public comment does so at their own risk, and the City makes no guarantees regarding compatibility with the City’s technology equipment and system, technological functionality, audio or visual quality, etc. If a public commenter’s electronic presentation is not working as desired after one minute, the commenter shall be given the option to restart their time and address the Council directly, or may choose to continue their time and continue with their electronic presentation. (k) Telephone Public Comment. Members of the public wishing to address the City Council by telephone must register at santamonica.gov/public-comment no later than 5:00 p.m. the last business day before a meeting. Electronic presentation materials are not permitted when commenting by telephone. Telephone callers will be heard after all inperson speakers are heard. (l) Requests for Accommodation. Requests for a disability accommodation to provide public testimony at a Council meeting should be submitted in writing to the City Clerk’s office via email at [email protected] or via telephone at (310) 458- 8211 at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Best efforts shall be used to accommodate requests received after the 72 hour deadline. In the case of special meetings, requests should be submitted as early as possible, but no later than noon the day of the Council special meeting.

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 26 RULE 16. RULES OF CONDUCT AND SAFETY.

When the City Council is in session, all persons present, whether in person or speaking by phone, must preserve safety and order and should strive to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy. Members of the public who are physically present at the Council meeting should sit in the audience seating area, unless addressing the City Council or entering or leaving the Council Chambers, should not block the aisles with personal belongings and should not bring audible equipment into the Council Chambers including cellular telephones or pagers. Members of the public may not, except when testifying on or participating in an Agenda item, enter the well area, which is the open area directly in front of the dais and extending outward from it to a line running between the points on the Clerk's desk and the podium nearest to the audience. Applause, vocally or clapping, is prohibited, except for ceremonial items, or as may be invited by the Presiding Officer.

Any person who disrupts the meeting shall be called to order by the Presiding Officer. Disruption shall include but not be limited to, blocking the audience or camera view of the proceedings. If such conduct continues, the Presiding Officer may request the Sergeant at Arms to remove the person from Council Chambers.

The Chief of Police or such member or members of the Police Department as the Chief may designate, shall be Sergeant At Arms of the City Council and shall carry out all orders given by the Presiding Officer through the City Manager for the purpose of maintaining order at City Council meetings. Any Councilmember may move to require the Presiding Officer to enforce the rules, and the affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council shall require the Presiding Officer to do so.

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 27 RULE 17. SEATING ORDER.

After each municipal election, the City Clerk shall determine City Council member seating order by drawing lots, with the exception of the Mayor Pro Tem, who shall be seated next to the Mayor. Changes in seating may be allowed by the Mayor, without requiring a vote, for good cause when those changing seats consent.

RULE 18. ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE AND FAILURE TO VOTE.

Every Councilmember is entitled to vote unless disqualified by reason of a conflict of interest. A Councilmember who abstains from voting consents to the decision made by the voting Councilmembers.

RULE 19. VOTING PROCEDURE.
(a) Any vote of the City Council, including a roll call vote, may be registered by the members answering “Yes” for an affirmative vote or “No” for a negative vote upon the member’s name being called by the City Clerk. Voting order shall be based on seating order with each roll call vote beginning at alternating ends of the dais and the Mayor voting last.
(b) Unless any Councilmember calls for separate votes in advance, any item on the Agenda with related sub-parts shall be treated as one Agenda item and voted on in one motion. If the item and sub-parts receive sufficient votes for approval of some, but not all sub-parts (some subparts may require 4 votes and some subparts 5), at the immediate request of any Councilmember, the first vote shall be nullified and Council shall then immediately, without discussion, vote on each item separately. (c) When the Council is making appointments to any committee, board, commission, or equivalent, the Council shall use ranked choice voting. Ranked choice voting process

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 28 shall be as follows:
(1) The ranked choice voting application to be used shall be rankedchoices.com. Should this application become available for any reason, another application may be selected as determined by the City Clerk. (2) The Clerk shall ask the Council for nominations from among the qualified applicants, and upon collecting all nominations, shall present the Council with the slate of nominees.
(3) Each Councilmember shall then indicate their first choice from among the slate of nominees; they each may indicate only 1 first choice; (4) Each Councilmember shall also indicate their second choice from among the nominees; they may indicate only 1 second choice; (5) Proceed to do the same for up to the total number of nominees; (6) Each Councilmember may rank as many or as few nominees as they may choose; each may not give the same rank to more than 1 nominee; each may not rank the same nominee more than once;
(7) As per rankedchoices.com, votes shall be counted using the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method (WIGM). The number of Councilmembers who chose a nominee as their first choice is added to the number of Councilmembers who chose the nominee as their second, third, etc. choice, with each count given approximately 2/3 of the weight given to the previous count. Then all the votes are added together to arrive at a tiebreaker value for each nominee. (8) After all Councilmembers cast their ballots, ranking their preferred nominees for election, the tabulation of votes takes the rankings into account. The

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 29 process may take multiple rounds of counting.
(9) The threshold (quota) needed to win an election is calculated by the application. The first-ranked nominees on all ballots are counted to determine which candidates meet the threshold (quota). Any nominee who has so few votes that they cannot mathematically meet the threshold at any point shall be eliminated.
(10) Any nominee who meets the threshold is a winner, and if the number of winners equals the number of seats to be elected, the vote is closed. If not, the winners’ ballots are evaluated, this time by the second-ranked nominees on the ballots, and the votes are transferred to candidates who are not yet winners and who haven’t been eliminated, but only to the extent that the winners had more than enough votes to win. For example, if Winner A received 20% over the threshold, the votes transferred to the second-ranked nominees are only 20% of a whole vote. (11) The process repeats through as many rounds of counting as necessary until the number of winners equals the number of seats to be filled. (12) If there are only two nominees for one open seat, the Clerk shall call upon each Councilmember to state their choice between those two nominees to make the selection.

RULE 20. DISQUALIFICATION FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Any Councilmember who is disqualified from voting on a particular matter by reason of a conflict of interest shall publicly state or have the Presiding Officer state the nature of such disqualification and shall leave the dais prior to Council consideration of the matter. A Councilmember stating or having the Presiding Officer state such

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 30 disqualification shall not be counted as part of a quorum and shall be considered absent for the purpose of determining the outcome of any vote on such matter.

RULE 21. TYPES OF MOTIONS.
(a) Only Councilmembers, or duly appointed members of boards sitting with the Council, may make Motions. The City Clerk shall record all motions and read them back when requested. Upon request, the City Attorney shall assist in the formation of motions.

A Councilmember must have the floor to make a motion.
(b) Any motion that does not receive a second shall not move forward, and then another motion may be made.
(c) For noticed public hearings and quasi-judicial matters, a main motion shall not be made until public comment on the item is complete. (d) There are three motions that are most common and are usually subject to debate:
(1) The main motion. This motion puts forward a substantive decision, most frequently an Agenda item, for Council consideration. A main motion may include changes to the item as stated on the Agenda or supplemental materials.

Only one main motion may be on the floor at one time.
(2) The motion to amend. This motion seeks to modify the main motion before the Council. A motion to amend cannot be made until there is a main motion on the floor. A motion to substitute a main motion with another motion shall be treated as a motion to amend. Only one motion to amend may be on the floor at one time. All motions to amend shall be resolved prior to voting on the main motion. (3) The procedural motion. This motion is to address a rule of

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 31 procedure, postpone, or take some other action. Procedural motions take priority over main motions and motions to amend. Only one procedural motion may be on the floor at one time. A “point of order” may be raised at any time, interrupting a speaker when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to make a procedural motion.

Procedural motions are debatable but not subject to public comment. (e) The following common procedural motions shall be handled as follows:
(1) Motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote. It is the highest priority motion. (2) Motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to immediately recess. The Presiding Officer determines the length of the recess. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote.
(3) Motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to adjourn the meeting at a specific time set in the motion. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote.
(4) Motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires the discussion of the Agenda item to be halted and the Agenda item placed on hold. The motion can contain a specific time in which the item can come back to Council. If the motion does not contain a specific time for the return of the item, a motion to take the item off the table will have to be taken at a future meeting to bring it back to the Council.

A motion to table or to bring it back to the Council requires a simple majority vote. (5) Motion to continue. This motion, if passed, requires the item to be withdrawn from the Agenda at that time and postponed either indefinitely or to a

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 32 certain time and/or date, or to a time later in that meeting, as stated in the motion.

A motion to continue is debatable and requires a simple majority vote. (6) “Friendly Amendment.” This is a “request,” rather than a formal motion. The speaker asks whether the maker of the main motion would agree to amend the motion, as suggested. If agreed, and if the member providing the second also agrees, or another second is offered, then the main motion is replaced with the amended motion. If an offer for a “friendly amendment” is rejected, then a formal motion to amend may be made.

RULE 22. CHANGING VOTE.

The vote of a Councilmember may be changed only if the Councilmember makes a timely request to do so immediately following the announcement of the vote by the City Clerk or the Presiding Officer and prior to the time that the next item in the order of business is taken up.

RULE 23. AGENDA MANAGEMENT.

At any time after roll call, the Presiding Officer may call for a motion for Agenda management to reorder or combine Agenda items or to determine when public comment may be taken on one or more items. However, public comment may be taken later, but not earlier, than the time or position shown on the Agenda. Noticed public hearings scheduled for a time certain may be heard later, but not earlier, than the time scheduled.

Such a motion shall require the votes of a majority of the Councilmembers present to pass. If such a motion is passed, the City Clerk shall call Agenda items or comment opportunity in accordance with the Agenda as modified by the motion.

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 33 RULE 24. PROCEDURE ON AGENDA ITEMS REQUIRING A MOTION.

The following procedure shall be followed in connection with any Agenda item requiring a motion:
(a) City Clerk reads the title.
(b) Presiding Officer calls for a staff report.
(c) Councilmembers question City staff.
(d) City Council conducts Public hearing.
(e) City Council deliberates.
(f) A Councilmember makes a motion, another Councilmember seconds the motion, and the Council debates it, with the maker of the motion having the opportunity to speak last.
(g) The Presiding Officer or City Clerk restates the motion. (h) The City Council votes on the motion.
(i) The Presiding Officer or City Clerk announces result.

RULE 25. PRESENCE OF CITY STAFF AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.

The City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney, or, in their absence, their authorized representatives, shall attend and be present during all City Council meetings and give necessary service and advice.

RULE 26. RECORD OF MEETINGS.

All public meetings of the City Council shall be recorded. The recording shall be made by City TV and retained in accordance with the City’s record retention schedule.

The use of other recording or television equipment is permitted so long as it is not disruptive of the meeting.

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 34 RULE 27. USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO COMMUNICATE DURING MEETINGS During City Council meetings, Councilmembers shall not use electronic communications of any type, including texts and emails, to communicate among themselves.

RULE 28. [Repealed]
RULE 29. CHARTER SECTION 615
In accordance with Charter Section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present at the meeting objects.

RULE 30. INTERPRETATION AND MODIFICATION OF THESE RULES.

These rules shall be interpreted liberally to provide for the optimum in the free interchange of information and public debate without an unnecessary waste of time or duplication of effort. These rules may be amended by resolution.

RULE 31. FAILURE TO OBSERVE RULES OF ORDER.

These rules of order and procedures govern the conduct of City Council meetings.

These rules are intended to expedite the transaction of the business of the City Council in an orderly fashion and are deemed to be procedural only. Failure to strictly observe these rules shall not affect the jurisdiction of the City Council or invalidate any action taken at a meeting that otherwise conforms to law.

RULE 32. COUNCIL BRIEFINGS.

The City Manager and/or City Attorney may meet with Councilmembers to provide briefings. Briefings shall be conducted in compliance with the Brown Act. No person shall attend these meetings other than the Councilmembers invited without invitation of the City

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 35 Manager and/or City Attorney. No Councilmember shall authorize or permit any person who is not a City of Santa Monica employee or duly appointed agent of the City (for example, outside counsel, contractor, or consultant) acting within the scope of that person’s job duties, to represent them as a Councilmember, or represent the Council, or the City, at any meeting, function, or event.

SECTION 2. Resolution Number 11649 (CCS) and all other resolutions adopting, amending, or relating to City Council Rules of Order, are hereby repealed in their entirety.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: Council Rules-Reso (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: DanielCollins <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:55 AM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Meeting 5.13.24 Vote NO on Agenda Item 12A & 4K Protect Our Neighborhood and Public Voice

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing as a concerned Santa Monica resident to respectfully urge you to vote NO on all five proposals included in Agenda Item 12A & 4K 5/13/2025. These proposals would have a lasting and detrimental impact on the character, safety, and livability of our community. Consequences of your actions will reverberate through history and will not be forgotten if shown to be Here’s why I strongly oppose Agenda Item 12A:

1. SB 79 – Overdevelopment Without Oversight
Allowing apartment and condo towers up to 15 stories tall within would invite unchecked overdevelopment, congestion and safety issues. This bill prioritizes developers over residents and undermines local control.This will be a nightmare for all of the longtime residents in the city. This is abhorrent, as these buildings are rent control exempt. Most people don't know this. You are not helping low income families or poor Santa Monica Residents. You are giving deals to the largest most influential developers. You are not taking care of the people. There is nothing progressive about you deals!

2. Eliminating the Owner-Occupancy Requirement for Lot Splits Do not allow large developments into R1 single family home neighborhoods! This erodes communities and transforms residential areas into apartment zones.

3. Removing Public Input on Commercial Development
Removing the requirement for council votes and public comment on commercial projects would silence the voices of residents and remove critical transparency from the development process.

Decisions that impact the future of our city should never be made behind closed doors.

4. Oppose Upzoning at 1331 Wilshire & 2644 30th Street
These proposals set a dangerous precedent for out-of-scale development in already congested areas. This intersection is a key traffic artery—upzoning both corners will worsen gridlock and create serious public safety risks.

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 During the Palisades fire, residents in the Wilmont neighborhood faced potential evacuation.

Overdevelopment and "road diet" policies that remove traffic lanes are turning vital evacuation routes into bottlenecks. During the Palisades fire residents were trapped in Hollywood and the Palisades due to narrowed streets and obstructed exits.

Councilmember Dan Hall’s remark that he wants to “squeeze people out of their cars” is not only irresponsible—it’s reckless and dangerous. Lives are at stake. Stop making Santa Monica unlivable and unsafe.

5. Reducing Public Speaking Time at Council Meetings
Limiting residents’ ability to speak and removing time donations further diminishes public participation in our democracy. Santa Monica deserves more transparency and engagement, not less.

6. It is deeply troubling that every member of this City Council has accepted campaign contributions from developers and affiliated political action committees. This represents a serious conflict of interest and may constitute a violation of the Fair Political Practices Commission’s (FPPC) Pay-to-Play restrictions. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in how these proposals are being advanced raises legitimate concerns about potential Brown Act violations. Santa Monica residents will not stand by! We will demand full accountability and ensure these matters are thoroughly investigated by the appropriate oversight authorities.

Each of these proposals benefits large developers, not the everyday residents who live, work, and raise families in Santa Monica. We are facing serious challenges in public safety, infrastructure, and affordability handing over our city to speculative interests will only worsen these problems.

Please stand with the residents of Santa Monica, not special interests. Vote NO on Agenda Item 12A & 4K.

Sincerely,
Daniel Collins
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Gregory Cole <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: RE: citizen comments on items before the city council 5/13/25

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members- As a long term Santa Monica resident and co-homeowner with my wife, I would like to register our opposition with comment in red to the following four items coming before the council:
1) Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 -
We oppose authorizing the City’s support for SB 79 (Wiener) because SB79 would allow 7-story market rate apartment towers and without offering any affordable housing. Like most residents and homeowners, we have all abided the existing regulations limiting our own property buildings and remodels with major investments. Santa Monica is already high density with ever increasing limitations on water and parking and ever increasing congestion. It is flooded with outside visitors beyond this density. It is unacceptable to further damage our lifetime investments in our homes and the quality of life in this city. 2) Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 We oppose ending this requirement to lose local control and enable developers further latitude to increase density without any of the intended benefits of supporting families trying to house their aging parents and the next generation with fewer and fewer job opportunities as they face the coming AI/ robotics onslaught on jobs. 3) Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone –
Aside from punishing residents with late night noise, this ordinance will inevitably lead to more visitors coming to party and leaving drunk and disorderly, often behind the wheel and capable of killing people. We see dead people and a council with responsibility.
4) Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules -
We oppose this change which limits the ability of any presentation of fact based reasoned arguments that would inform the council and public opinion. It inflates the impact of outsiders and insiders lobbying the council and city staff and diminish democratic governance that respects resident rights to voice their opinions in meaningful ways.

Thank you for considering our views,
Sincerely,
Greg M. Cole and Sally A. Frautschy
18 Seaview Terrace
Santa Monica, Ca. 90401
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1077 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: chuck chuckhusting.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Agenda Items 4J - OPPOSE, Item 12A - OPPOSE, Item 10A - OPPOSE, Item4K - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
I STRONGLY OPPOSE the following measures before the City Council on Tuesday, May 13, 2024:
 Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE  Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 - OPPOSE  Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone – OPPOSE Make the parking more economical and more people will go to the promenade. I think the counter car culture that has developed is more of a detraction than the leadershop realizes. Even metered parking, dropped from 90 minutes to 60 minutes on Wilshire. It is very difficult to have a business lunch within 60 minutes. These are important nuances. (the Promenade parking structures were free of charge when initially built. They don’t have to be free, but it has gotten more expensive, and the rates seem to change often. People do not like to be surprised with suddenly high parking rates.  Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1078 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Bernd Stephan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4K , 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
As a long-time, tax-paying citizen of the City of Santa Monica, I STRONGLY OPPOSE Item 4K - Change in Public Input Rules. I kindly request our City Council to oppose this proposal.

Sincerely,
Bernd Stephan
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1079 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Bernd Stephan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4K , 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
As a long-time, tax-paying citizen of the City of Santa Monica, I STRONGLY OPPOSE Item 4K - Promenade Entertainment Zone. I kindly request our City Council to oppose this proposal.

Sincerely,
Bernd Stephan
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1080 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Lori Akian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4K , 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
As a long-time, tax-paying citizen of the City of Santa Monica, I STRONGLY OPPOSE Item 4K - Change in Public Input Rules. I kindly request our City Council to oppose this proposal.

Sincerely,
Lori Stephan
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1081 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

While I understand and appreciate that this item is being considered as part of a goal to shorten the length of Council meetings, which often run late into the night, time donation is an important part of our collective ability to make certain points and speak coherently as a group. Currently 2-minute time limits (sometimes already shortened to 1-minute on a busy night) exist for any member of the public to comment verbally on an agenda item (with a maximum of 6-minutes total of speaking time per meeting).

When many policy decisions get combined into single items on the agenda, we are already severely limited in our ability to address them, simply because of the maximum time limits on our total speech.

Speaking publicly is the only way that we can know for sure that Council Members hear resident’s voices on important matters.

Thank you,
Nancy Hall
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1082 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Eve Lopez Esq.

Subject: May 13, 2025: Agenda Item 4K (Amending the Council Rules of Procedure) OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Members of the City Council,
I write to respectfully object to the proposed amendments to the Council Rules of Order that would limit public comment to one minute per speaker when 25 or more speakers are registered and eliminate the ability of members of the public to donate their time to a designated speaker.

While I recognize the Council’s intent to improve meeting efficiency, the proposed amendments are likely to have the opposite effect—diminishing, rather than streamlining, public participation and risking a serious erosion of the public’s legally protected right to meaningfully engage in local government. The proposed rule change resembles policies more aligned with the Trump administration than with the values of an inclusive, progressive city like Santa Monica.

Donating Time Promotes Efficiency, Not Delay
Allowing members of the public to donate their time to a designated speaker is a proven method for promoting clarity, efficiency, and meaningful participation. A well-prepared speaker with donated time can present organized, representative testimony on behalf of multiple constituents, reducing redundancy and elevating the quality of public input. This approach avoids a series of disjointed one to two minute sound bites and instead enables thoughtful, substantive contributions.

Notably, Mayor Negrete has publicly encouraged this practice in recent months as a way to streamline meetings while still honoring the public’s voice.

The One-Minute Limit is Not Reasonable
Under the Brown Act (Government Code § 54954.3(b)), the Council may adopt reasonable regulations to limit the total time allocated for public testimony. However, the law also requires that the public be given an opportunity to address the legislative body meaningfully before or during consideration of an item.

A blanket rule that automatically limits all speakers to just one minute when 25 or more individuals sign up does not meet the Brown Act’s standard of reasonableness. When dozens of community members take time to appear before the City Council, it signals the presence of an issue that demands more public engagement, not less. These are precisely the moments when the Council should allocate greater time and attention to public input—not curtail it. California courts have made clear that speech limits must preserve the public’s ability to participate meaningfully in the deliberative process. Arbitrarily reducing speaking time—regardless of the complexity or gravity of the matter—risks reducing public comment to a mere formality, undermining its value as a tool for accountability, transparency, and informed policymaking.

Proposed Rule Would Chill Civic Engagement
Santa Monica has a long tradition of civic engagement. Curtailing the ability of residents to fully participate in public meetings—especially during moments of high community interest—sends the wrong message. Rather than discouraging engagement, the City should be adopting tools that elevate public discourse, such as time donations, structured panels, or extended speaking opportunities on high-impact issues.

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1083 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 3 Alternative Options for Streamlining Meetings
If the Council is sincerely committed to streamlining its meetings while enhancing public participation, there are far more effective and transparent alternatives than restricting public comment.

Agenda packets for Council meetings routinely exceed 1,000 pages and are often supplemented with new materials just hours before a meeting begins. It is difficult—if not impossible—for both the public and councilmembers to fully digest and respond to this volume of information on such short notice. This undermines the transparency and accountability that are foundational to effective governance.

Rather than curtailing public input, the Council should prioritize improvements to its own internal processes, including:
 Adopting rules that require staff reports exceeding 20 pages to be made publicly available at least 7 days in advance of a Council meeting, to allow for meaningful review and informed public comment.  Scheduling closed session items after the conclusion of the public agenda, rather than forcing the public to wait— often for hours—without knowing when they’ll have the opportunity to speak. Delaying public comment for lengthy closed sessions discourages participation and disproportionately affects working residents.  Avoiding last-minute continuances of public hearing items without sufficient advance notice. Like many others, I have rearranged work and family obligations to attend and speak on issues, only to arrive and be told the item has been postponed. This is frustrating, wasteful, and disheartening.

These are the types of reforms that would both improve meeting efficiency and demonstrate respect for the time and commitment of the public. I urge the Council to direct its efforts toward solutions that expand access, not restrict it—and to lead by example in making City Hall more transparent, predictable, and responsive.

A Better Path Forward
I urge the Council to:
 Preserve the public’s ability to donate time to a designated speaker;  Avoid adopting a rigid one-minute rule and instead retain discretion to adjust time limits case-by-case, balancing meeting management with public input needs;
 Consider alternative formats (e.g., time caps for total comment periods, written comments as supplements, or advance sign-ups with flexible grouping) that honor both the law and the public’s role in governance; and  Consider improvements to its own internal processes.

Thank you for your consideration and continued service to the residents of Santa Monica. I respectfully request that the Council reject the proposed amendments in their current form and instead recommit to a public process that values both efficiency and robust participation.

Sincerely,
Eve Lopez
Attorney
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1084 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Phil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: Please Vote NO on Agenda Item 12A Protect Our Neighborhood and Public Voice Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing as a concerned Santa Monica resident of 35 years to respectfully urge you to vote NO on all five proposals included in Agenda Item 12A 5/13/2025. These proposals would have a lasting and detrimental impact on the character, safety, and livability of our community.

Here’s why I strongly oppose Agenda Item 12A:

1. SB 79 – Overdevelopment Without Oversight
Allowing apartment and condo towers up to 15 stories tall within a 1⁄2 mile of any transit stop, including an ever-growing number of bus stops, would invite unchecked overdevelopment, congestion and safety issues. This bill prioritizes developers over residents and undermines local control.

2. Eliminating the Owner-Occupancy Requirement for Lot Splits This change would accelerate speculative real estate activity in single-family neighborhoods, eroding community stability and transforming residential areas into zones apartment zones.

4. Upzoning 1331 Wilshire and 2644 30th Street
These proposals set a dangerous precedent for out-of-scale development in sensitive areas. Upzoning without community input disregards the values and concerns of surrounding residents.

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 Santa Monica residents will not stand by! We will demand full accountability and ensure these matters are thoroughly investigated by the appropriate oversight authorities.

Each of these proposals benefits large developers, not the everyday residents, like myself, who live, work, and raise families in Santa Monica. We are facing serious challenges in public safety, infrastructure, and affordability by handing over our city to speculative interests will only worsen these problems.

Please stand with the residents of Santa Monica, not special interests. Vote NO on Agenda Item 2A.

Sincerely,
Philip Cass
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Phil Cass
Actor/Photographer
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0143920/?ref_=nv_sr_2
www.PhilCassPhotography.com
(310) 804-9843
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: MarieHernandez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Meeting 5.13.24 Vote NO on Agenda Item 12A & 4K Protect Our Neighborhood and Public Voice

Here’s why I strongly oppose Agenda Item 12A:

1. SB 79 – Overdevelopment Without Oversight
Allowing apartment and condo towers up to 15 stories tall within a 1Ú2 mile of any transit stop, including an ever-growing number of bus stops, would invite unchecked overdevelopment, congestion and safety issues. This bill prioritizes developers over residents and undermines local control.

4. Upzoning 1331 Wilshire and 2644 30th Street
These proposals set a dangerous precedent for out-of-scale development in sensitive areas.

Upzoning without community input disregards the values and concerns of surrounding residents. This intersection is already congested and will have 2 corners of up zoned development that will further congest and create a traffic nightmare on this crucial artery. STOP making this city unlivable!
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 5. Reducing Public Speaking Time at Council Meetings
Limiting residents’ ability to speak and removing time donations further diminishes public participation in our democracy. Santa Monica deserves more transparency and engagement, not less.

Please stand with the residents of Santa Monica, not special interests. Vote NO on Agenda Item 12A.

Sincerely,
Marie Hernandez
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Luba Rosenblum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEMS 10A, 4J, 4K, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
I would like to voice my strong opposition to items 10A, 4J and 4K being discussed by the City Council.

Why in the world would residents want to live in a city where people can hang out drunk at the local promenade, where large buildings can be built without an environmental impact study and where citizens' rights to voice their opinions is being curtailed? This is a residential neighborhood, not the strip in Las Vegas. This seems like a very clear, wrong direction for the future of this city.

Thank you,
Luba Rosenblum
--
Luba Rosenblum, MS, RDN
Registered Dietitian Nutritionist | Pacific Nutrition Partners 310.486.3901
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Brenda Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 10A - 5/13/25 - OPPOSE; ITEM 4J - 5/13/25 - OPPOSE; ITEM 4K - 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
The items above are, in my opinion, proposals that should not be approved, nor even considered.

Open alcohol consumption is a terrible idea. Please do not approve this. Also, The development proposal is also not in alignment with good sense.

Brenda Anderson
475 24th Street
Santa Monica 90402
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Paula Mayerson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Items 4J & 10A & 4K

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1091 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: M Wickline <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Marcy Hardart
Subject: OPPOSE Items 4J, 4K, and 10A

EXTERNAL
This is insanity--to allow developers to build these large buildings without formal review or environmental impact studies. It is wrongheaded and smells of corruption.

Matt Wickline
( resident since 1990 )

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Suzanne Hunt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE 4J, OPPOSE 4K, OPPOSE 10A, OPPOSE 12A

Focus on our residents. Stop putting these builders profits ahead of all of those who live here.

OPPOSE 4J
Stop the overbuilding. We do not need to weigh in on this bill. Leave our city alone, you are ruining it.

OPPOSE 4K -
The public deserves to have a voice in their city.

OPPOSE 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone.

OPPOSE 12A - End Owner Occupancy Requirement
STOP THE OVERBUILDING. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Thank you
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Daniel Galamba
Subject: City Council Meeting on May 13, 2025: Please oppose items 4J, 12A, 10A and 4K

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Laura M. Gallant <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: Regarding upcoming votes on development issues

Thank you for your consideration.

Laura Gallant
Resident
2225 26th St, Santa Monica
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: T GROSSMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: [email protected]; zinajosephs; [email protected] Subject: Say no! Re council agenda items for May 13

EXTERNAL
Hello, I'm writing to voice my strong opposition to the following items on your agenda tonight and asking you to vote no to:

Thank you,
Tina Grossman
Resident of Sunset Park since 1992
Resident of Santa Monica since 1979
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1096 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:20 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Consideration for item K

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I generally support Item K's efforts to streamline public input, but recommend considering whether to keep the ability to donate time to other speakers. In past meetings with substantial discussion, this donation has allowed large groups to nominate a single speaker on their behalf. In addition to reducing the total time for 20+ people to stand up to repeat a quick talking point, this seemed to allow for a more nuanced discussion from the individual that could best articulate their view. The overall time permitted is already capped at 6 minutes.

Thank you,
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1097 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Abby Adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Time donation at least provides some measure of protection against having our voices silenced. It is helpful when one person wants to amplify the message of another, or if someone feels nervous to speak in front of a crowd but still has an important POV and will allow someone else to speak for them. Limiting our ability to speak by abolishing time donation - especially in a moment in time when we face increasingly harsh crackdowns on speech from the current federal administration - feels like the wrong solution to meeting length issues. Speaking publicly is the only way that we can know for sure that Council Members hear resident’s voices on important matters.

Thank you,
Abby and Patrick Adams
475 17th Street
SM. 90402
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1098 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Linda V <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 4K -PUBLIC INPUT RULE - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Council Members:

I am OPPOSED to Item 4K.

Per information from NOMA:

This item changes the rules of Public Comment with elaborate restrictions on how long you can speak to City Council.

The board of North of Montana Association summed it up perfectly: “the more upset we are with their actions, the more people who care enough to show up, the less time we will have to speak.”
This Agenda Item seeks to limit comments from the public to 2 minutes per public input section, rather than 2 minutes on each agenda item. It will automatically reduce public comment to 1 minute each if 25 or more people sign up to speak. It also eliminates the ability to donate time to a single speaker, which is helpful when there is someone who best represents a group and has a more complicated presentation that requires more than 2 minutes.

This is unacceptable to me as a citizen of Santa Monica. How will you know and understand our feelings without public comments.

Linda Velonis
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1099 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Leslie Butchko <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
5/13/25 Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE
Leslie Butchko
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1100 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 5 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4K - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Insane-a-Monica Council,
NO. Contrary to your beliefs, Insane-a-Monica is not a fiefdom and you are neither Lords nor Ladies.

Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1101 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 6 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item #4.K. - Council Rules of Procedure - May 13, 2025

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please OPPOSE changing procedures that restricts residents from giving useful public comments during Council meetings.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1102 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules – OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I oppose Agenda Item 4K.

Thank you for considering my opinion for Santa Monica
John Dahl
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1103 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 8 David Yakobson
From: Darko Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE! Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Darko Suvak
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1104 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Josephine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems

EXTERNAL
Hi to all the city council people,
I want to express my strong opposition to several of the agenda to be discussed at your meeting on may 13, 2025, namely:

The item 4J for SB 9, the item 12A for SB 9, and the item 4K concerning the public input.

My hope is that the decisions made by the city council will be made in the interest of the residents.

Thank you for your attention
Josephine Bakis
2808 Washington Avenue
Santa Monic
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1105 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Lee Rosenbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Opposition to several agenda items for May 13 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

Please note that, as a longtime Santa Monica resident, I disapprove of three items on your agenda for your meeting tomorrow:

1. Item 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone. This looks like a Hail, Mary to save the Promenade.

2. Item 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79. Why support a give-away to developers with no requirement that they provide affordable housing? Another terrible idea.

I sincerely hope that you have the good sense to reject all three of these proposals.

Lee Rosenbaum
211 Marguerita Avenue
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1106 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: I OPPOSE three agenda items on Tues 5-13-25 Meeting: 1) ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone; 2) ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79; and 3) ITEM 4K - Change in Public Input Rules

Thank you,
Howard Eliash
LongƟme Resident of Santa Monica
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1107 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Hi

Mitchell Lachamn
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1108 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Nancy HR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
To the city of Santa Monica council:

I, Nancy Hochman Ross, who live at 616 20th St., Santa Monica 90402, oppose items 4J, 12A and 4K.

Thank you,
Nancy
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1109 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Michele Garber <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: SM Council Meeting 5/13/25, OPPOSE AGENDA ITEMS 4J, 12A, 4K

Sincerely,
Michele Garber
1128 Princeton St.

SM 90403
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1110 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Linda Karr O'Connor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: Items 12:A.2, 4-J, 4-K: Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

Thank you.

Linda Karr O’Connor
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1111 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Jason Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE ITEMS 10A, 4J, 4K

EXTERNAL
Please oppose -
Item 10A - This is a horrible proposal and will do nothing but create more chaos on the promenade thanks to an already out of control homeless crisis.

Item 4J - Please oppose this giveaway to developers.

Thank you
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1112 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Marcy Hardart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4K - Change in Public Input Rules, 5/13/25 OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
This is clearly an effort to stifle the voice of the residents of Santa Monica. Yes, I understand that meetings get long, but free speech is SO important, now more than ever. The people of the city need to be able to make our voices heard.

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1113 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: girltunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Items: 4J, 12A, 10A, and 4K

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I stand with Northeast Neighbors in OPPOSING Agenda Items 4J, 12A, 10A and 4K.

Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1114 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Rose Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda items 4J, 12A, 10A,4K meeting 5/13/25 I OPPOSE these items

EXTERNAL
I oppose the agenda items as noted in subject line.

Rose Nelson
35 year Santa Monica resident
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1115 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 4j - 12a - 10a - 4k

EXTERNAL
Hello
I’m writing you today to express my opposition of the following items - 4j - 12a - 10a - 4k.

I am a lifelong Santa Monica resident, born and raised attending Santa Monica schools. Roosevelt, Lincoln, samo high and crossroads.

My grandparents moved to Santa Monica in the 50s - you’d be hard pressed to find a resident with deeper roots here than myself.

I love this city very much.

With that I ask you to please oppose these actions items.

Public drinking all day long on the promenade does not help us restore what was once the envy of the country for family entertainment.

Nor does building 7 story apartments buildings in our beautiful residential neighborhoods.

Thank you
Jared Freedman
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1116 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Carol Dickinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 0PP0SE Items 12A, 4J, 4K & 10A at City Council Meeting 5/13/25

Sincerely,
Carol Dickinson
1030 25th Street
Santa Monica
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1117 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: S Ruth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council Agenda Items 4J - OPPOSE, Item 12A - OPPOSE, Item 10A - OPPOSE, Item4K - OPPOSE

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1118 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Richard Robin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Oppose

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1119 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Adeena Karsseboom Fitterman <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/2025 Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
I OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 4K - PUBLIC INPUT RULES
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1120 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Gary Freedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 6:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4K-May 13 Meeting--OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern
We are 50+ year residents of Santa Monica.

This Item reads like a Trumpian proposal. Shut off democracy.

Why would a Council that prides itself on being inclusive want to limit public discussion and public participation?
Shame shame shame.

Sincerely,
Donna and Gary Freedman
533 9th Street
Santa Monica 90402
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1121 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item 4k -5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Date: May 13, 2025 at 12:30:04 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 4k -5/13/25 - OPPOSE
Dear Councilmembers,
I oppose Agenda Item 4K. Public speakers should be allowed 2 minutes per Agenda Item to voice their opinions.

Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1122 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 4k -5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I oppose Agenda Item 4K. Public speakers should be allowed 2 minutes per Agenda Item to voice their opinions.

Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1123 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 5 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4K on 5/13/25 -- OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
Please do NOT support Agenda Item 4K on 5/13/25. Let’s not damage or ruin this city with this ill-conceived proposal.

Thank you,
Kirk & Nan Borcherding
residents
924 25th Street
Santa Monica
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1124 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 6 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

Currently 2-minute time limits (sometimes already shortened to 1-minute on a busy night) exist for any member of the public to comment verbally on an agenda item (with a maximum of 6-minutes total of speaking time per meeting). When many policy decisions get combined into single items on the agenda, we are already severely limited in our ability to address them, simply because of the maximum time limits on our total speech. Time donation at least provides some measure of protection against having our voices silenced. It is helpful when one person wants to amplify the message of another, or if someone feels nervous to speak in front of a crowd but still has an important POV and will allow someone else to speak for them.

Limiting our ability to speak by abolishing time donation - especially in a moment in time when we face increasingly harsh crackdowns on speech from the current federal administration - feels like the wrong solution to meeting length issues. Speaking publicly is the only way that we can know for sure that Council Members hear resident’s voices on important matters.

Thank you,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1125 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 7 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Mtg. 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1126 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 8 David Yakobson
From: George Ferrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members:

I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments. While I understand and appreciate that this item is being considered as part of a goal to shorten the length of Council meetings, which often run late into the night, time donation is an important part of our collective ability to make certain points and speak coherently as a group. Currently 2-minute time limits (sometimes already shortened to 1-minute on a busy night) exist for any member of the public to comment verbally on an agenda item (with a maximum of 6-minutes total of speaking time per meeting). When many policy decisions get combined into single items on the agenda, we are already severely limited in our ability to address them, simply because of the maximum time limits on our total speech. Time donation at least provides some measure of protection against having our voices silenced. It is helpful when one person wants to amplify the message of another, or if someone feels nervous to speak in front of a crowd but still has an important POV and will allow someone else to speak for them. Limiting our ability to speak by abolishing time donation - especially in a moment in time when we face increasingly harsh crackdowns on speech from the current federal administration - feels like the wrong solution to meeting length issues. Speaking publicly is the only way that we can know for sure that Council Members hear resident’s voices on important matters.

Thank you,
George Ferrell
338 15th St
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1127 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 9 David Yakobson
From: George Ferrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members:

Thank you,
Peggy Ferrell
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1128 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 10 David Yakobson
From: Sue Edwards <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 4-K. OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
OPPOSE
Sue Edwards
428 - 15th St.
90402
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1129 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 11 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FOSP: 5/13 Council agenda item 4-K -- Limiting public input -- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
May 12, 2025

To; Mayor Negrete and Council members

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

RE: 5/13/25 agenda item 4-K -- Limiting Public Input -- OPPOSE!

"Members of the public will no longer be able to donate their time to another speaker."

The FOSP Board opposes the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

What is the rationale for this proposed change?
While we understand and appreciate the goal of shortening the length of Council meetings, which often run late into the night, time donation is an important part of our collective ability to make certain points and speak coherently as a group.

As a fairly new Council, you may not realize that the time limit used to be 3 minutes.

Currently, 2-minute time limits (sometimes already shortened to 1-minute on a busy night) exist for any member of the public to comment verbally on an agenda item (with a maximum of 6-minutes total of speaking time per meeting).

When many policy decisions get combined into single items on the agenda, we are already severely limited in our ability to address them, simply because of the maximum time limits on our total speech.

Limiting our ability to speak by abolishing time donation - especially in a moment in time when we face increasingly harsh crackdowns on speech from the current federal administration - feels like the wrong solution to issues of meeting length. Speaking publicly is the only way that we can know for sure that Council members hear residents' voices on important matters.

Again, the FOSP Board opposes the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1130 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 12 Thank you for your consideration.

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1131 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 13 David Yakobson
From: Ralph Barton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4K – 5/12/2025 - "Public Input Rules" - OPPOSE - So you're tired of hearing from those who voted for you? Yes, Comrade.... geesh.....

EXTERNAL
This item is INSULTING. You continuously jam all these totally unbalanced “pro-housing” (which IF balanced is a great and needed thing) city laws and ordinances wrapped as a giant gift to your developer buddies. So now you just want to vote an limit our input? Are we a burden to your own agenda ? No growth is not good, we need more housing, but not 70 foot buildings next to single story family homes. That’s the entire point of zoning the PLANNING part with PUBLIC COMMENT and input from the people it actually aƯects.

How about actually having a real zoning plan? 4 story apartments can turn into 6 story apartments, 2 story apartments can turn into 4 story apartments. Provide incentives or looser rules on ADUs, I have tried to do one but the rules are so restrictive it’s not worth me spending $350,000 to build a 1,000 ft unit.

I know being a councilperson is not an easy job but this item 4K and 4J are just flat out intellectual laziness. CA is a HUGE state and can’t possibly work if we treat every city the same AND STIFLE THE VOICES THAT YOU DON’T WANT TO HEAR.

Ralph Barton
908 26th St.

Santa Monica, CA
Ralph
_______________________________
Ralph G. Barton, Jr. (Mobile) 310-633-4963 (Fax) 310-564-7577 Bring the Joy®
Nothing Bundt Cakes
Manhattan Beach,CA – Torrance,CA - Costa Mesa,CA – Mission Viejo,CA Roseville,CA – Folsom,CA - Newton,MA
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1132 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 14 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: AGENA ITEM 4K-PUBLIC INPUT RULES -OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, May 12, 2025 at 9:19 PM
Subject: Fwd: AGENA ITEM 4K-PUBLIC INPUT RULES -OPPOSE
To: <[email protected]>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, May 12, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Subject: AGENA ITEM 4K-PUBLIC INPUT RULES -OPPOSE
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, lana.negrete <[email protected]>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>
"Adding insult to injury, this item changes the rules of Public Comment with elaborate restrictions on how long you can speak to the City Council.

The board of North of Montana Association summed it up perfectly: “the more upset we are with their actions, the more people who care enough to show up, the less time we will have to speak.” This Agenda Item seeks to limit comments from the public to 2 minutes per public input section, rather than 2 minutes on each agenda item. It will automatically reduce public comment to 1 minute each if 25 or more people sign up to speak. It also eliminates the ability to donate time to a single speaker, which is helpful when there is someone who best represents a group and has a more complicated presentation that requires more than 2 minutes." WHY NOT JUST START ARRESTING PEOPLE? SEEMS LIKE THAT IS WHO YOU ARE- WHY LISTEN WHEN YOU HAVE ALREADY DECIDED ON AN ITEM - SO SOLD OUT YOU ARE ..

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1133 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 15 SO TIRED OF IT... JUST QUIET PEOPLE - YOU DON'T CARE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ANYWAY..

HOW ABOUT HAVING CLOSED SESSIONS ON ANOTHER DAY..THAT WOULD SURE HELP

DANIELLE CHARNEY
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1134 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 16 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: AGENA ITEM 4K-PUBLIC INPUT RULES -OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, May 12, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Subject: AGENA ITEM 4K-PUBLIC INPUT RULES -OPPOSE
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, lana.negrete <[email protected]>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>
"Adding insult to injury, this item changes the rules of Public Comment with elaborate restrictions on how long you can speak to the City Council.

The board of North of Montana Association summed it up perfectly: “the more upset we are with their actions, the more people who care enough to show up, the less time we will have to speak.” This Agenda Item seeks to limit comments from the public to 2 minutes per public input section, rather than 2 minutes on each agenda item. It will automatically reduce public comment to 1 minute each if 25 or more people sign up to speak. It also eliminates the ability to donate time to a single speaker, which is helpful when there is someone who best represents a group and has a more complicated presentation that requires more than 2 minutes." WHY NOT JUST START ARRESTING PEOPLE? SEEMS LIKE THAT IS WHO YOU ARE- WHY LISTEN WHEN YOU HAVE ALREADY DECIDED ON AN ITEM - SO SOLD OUT YOU ARE ..

SO TIRED OF IT... JUST QUIET PEOPLE - YOU DON'T CARE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ANYWAY..

HOW ABOUT HAVING CLOSED SESSIONS ON ANOTHER DAY..THAT WOULD SURE HELP

DANIELLE CHARNEY
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1135 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 17 David Yakobson
From: Bea Nemlaha <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Agenda 4K - Public Input Rules - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Council,
You work hard, you devote many late hours to Council work and many more hours the public never sees. Your wish to minimize late night sessions through limited public input is understandable.

But minimizing public input is wrong. The proposed new rules will isolate you from your constituents, the people you are elected to serve.

Perhaps creating a resident task force charged with proposing several alternatives might be a better approach.

NO on Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules
Bea Nemlaha
Ocean Park
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1136 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 18 David Yakobson
From: Olga Milosavljevic <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 4K, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
I opposed limiting our voices. We elected you and yet we see patterns of voting that is not representative of Santa Monica residents but of mystery personal interests - case in point Zwick's support of 4J. Perhaps there's an explanation but if we're not able to sufficiently participate in council meetings, ask questions and get explanations to hold council members accountable - why do we have elections? a periodic rubber stamp?
I oppose in the strongest terms 4K
/Olga
--
Olga Milosavljevic
[email protected]
What we have before us are some breathtaking opportunities disguised as insoluble problems -- John W.

Gardner 1965
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1137 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 19 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, We are concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

While we understand and appreciate that this item is being considered as part of a goal to shorten the length of Council meetings, which often run late into the night, time donation is an important part of our collective ability to make certain points and speak coherently as a group.

Thank you,
William and Mary Lou Schoene
1519 Oak Street
Santa Monica 90405
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1138 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 20 David Yakobson
From: Karen Freedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda item 4K, 5/13/2025

EXTERNAL
Please accept this email as an official declaration of my opposition to Agenda Item 4K. I want my opposition included in the official record.

Thank you,
Karen Freedman
Santa Monica 90402
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1139 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 21 David Yakobson
From: Rachel Harms <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4K 5/13/25 – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members
I am a 30 year resident of Santa Monica. In a time when public engagement has never been more important, it is shocking to witness this blatant attempt to limit and stifle public comment.

I strongly oppose this rule change that would repress the voices of our citizens and severely limit opportunities for them to express their views directly to you. As our representatives, you should be encouraging public comment rather than making it obsolete or meaningless. These severe restrictions would do just that.

Sincerely,
Rachel Harms
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1140 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 22 David Yakobson
From: Vivien Flitton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Sincerely,
Vivien Flitton
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1141 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 23 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; Douglas Sloan
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Council Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To: City Council
From: Northeast Neighbors
Re Agenda Item 4K - OPPOSE further restrictions on public input Councilmembers,
Agenda item 4K to limit Public Comment is deeply disturbing to longtime residents like myself because it takes us further and further away from public engagement. When I first moved to Santa Monica the Council meetings were opportunities for genuine exchanges between the residents and the Councilmembers.

Back then, there was no automatic timer that shut off when a member of the public had hit the one-minute or two-minute limit. Instead, if your time was up and you were midsentence the mayor would invite you to complete the sentence.

On some occasions a Councilmember might ask you a question and this engagement really contributed to the discussion that followed.

It was – looking back – a very different relationship between the elected officials and the community. We were not just spectators.

We should not allow further erosion of our local democracy.

Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1142 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 24 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 4K Public Input Rules 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
We need more Police and a SubStation in the Promenade, not an Entertainment Zone.

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1143 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 25 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Friends of Sunset Park
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

As someone who has very recently gotten engaged on several issues for the city, I have learned personally that Council meetings are often quite long. I have much respect for how much work and time you all put into Santa Monica, and don't want to take up any more of your time than is necessary.

But it seems to me that time donation is an important part of our collective ability to make certain points and speak coherently as a group.

Time donation is helpful when one person wants to amplify the message of another, or if someone feels nervous to speak in front of a crowd but still has an important POV and will allow someone else to speak for them.

Also, doesn't having one person speak for many actually reduce public comment time? If multiple people have to speak, when some of them would have been willing to let another speak for them, don't we then have the extra friction of physically switching speakers, starting new timers, etc etc.

Thank you,
Heather Thomason
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1144 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 26 David Yakobson
From: Leslie Neale <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Leslie Neale
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1145 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 27 David Yakobson
From: Richard Thaler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: Item 4K, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Please vote no on Item 4K- Change in Public Input Rules. Limiting the amount of time to comment and give input on agenda items is in effect limiting our citizen right to express our opinion and give input regarding political actions that directly affect us and our fellow citizens. Given the historically liberal nature of Santa Monica, I’m shocked that this is even being seriously considered.

Regards,
Richard Thaler
740 Adelaide Place
Santa Monica 90402
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1146 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 4:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Dan Hall
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Susan Cline; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola; Jing Yeo; Armine Chaparyan; Heidi von Tongeln; Heather Averick; Jing Yeo; Nikima Newsome Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-Tem Torosis, and Council Members - I am concerned about and OPPOSE the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Councilmembers and appointees to Boards and Commissions do not necessarily read written public comment, which makes provision for adequate oral public comment at Council and other key meetings critical.

Speaking publicly is the only way that we can know for sure that Council Members hear resident’s voices on important matters.

Thank you,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 28+ years
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: danilobach <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 4:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 4K - 5/13/25 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
OPPOSE.

Public input should never be discouraged or disparaged.

Respectfully,
Danilo Bach
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1148 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ed Towle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council mtg. 5/13/25

EXTERNAL
Item 4J 5/13/25 OPPOSE
Item 4-K 5/13/25 OPPOSE
Edmund J. Towle III
349 15th street
SM
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1149 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Gail Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Gail Gordon
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1150 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: danilobach <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 4:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 4K - 5/13/25 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
OPPOSE.

Public input should never be discouraged or disparaged.

Respectfully,
Danilo Bach
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1151 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Johanna Rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda items for City Council meeting on Tuesday May 13

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1152 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Julie Cantor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to items on agenda of tomorrow's City Council meeting

Thank you and best regards.

Julie Cantor
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1153 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: gary samson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis Subject: , 4J and 4K

EXTERNAL
We want to express our opposition to these Items on the counsel agenda.

Gary Samson Laurie Samson
1407 Car;y;e Ave 90402
[email protected]
Cell: 213-598-4043
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1154 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: ADRIANA SHEINBAUM <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 10A - ITEM 4K - ITEM 4J OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City of Santa Monica Councilmembers,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to three items currently under consideration during tomorrow’s meeting:

ITEM 4K – Change in Public Input Rules
We also oppose any changes that would reduce the public's right to comment and provide input on Council decisions.

Community participation is essential to a healthy democracy, and any attempt to limit our voices undermines the transparency and accountability we expect from our local government.

We urge the Council to reject these items to preserve our community's public safety and democratic participation.

Sincerely,
Adriana Sheinbaum
Rodrigo Garcia
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1155 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Joan Goldsmith Gurfield <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 12:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Misguided meeting items

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Several items scheduled to be discussed seem misguided and/or dangerous.

Item 10A allows open alcohol consumption from 8 a.m. to 2 a.m., daily. What is the necessity for this? I think it will lead to public drunkenness, accidents, fights, etc.

Item 4K, changing the time for public input, while understandable (in terms of long meetings and people's patience) doesn't allow adequate time for some arguments to be made.

I strongly urge you to reconsider all of these items.

Thank you
Joan Gurfield
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cindy Fraser <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Cynthia Fraser
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: nancykless <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Nancy Kless
310-890-4266
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Susan Jain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Susan Jain
Sunset Park Resident
Vice Chair, SM Arts Commission
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1159 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Amy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Amy Bisson
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 5 David Yakobson
From: Danny Guggenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I do not support abolishing "time donation" during public comments. I sympathize with the goal of shortening the length of Council meetings, but time donation is an important part of residents’ collective ability to make certain points and speak coherently as a group. Especially when many policy decisions get combined into single items on the agenda, the public is already severely limited in the ability to address them, simply because of the maximum time limits on total speech. Time donation provides some measure of protection against having voices silenced, and is helpful when one person wants to amplify the message of another, or if someone feels nervous to speak in front of a crowd but still has an important message that can be better delivered by someone else. Limiting the ability to speak by abolishing time donation feels like the wrong solution to meeting length issues, as speaking publicly is the only way that residents can be certain that the Council hears our voices on important matters.

Thank you,
Danny Guggenheim
Sunset Park homeowner since 2006
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1161 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 6 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments. While I understand and appreciate that this item is being considered as part of a goal to shorten the length of Council meetings, which often run late into the night, time donation is an important part of our collective ability to make certain points and speak coherently as a group. Currently 2-minute time limits (sometimes already shortened to 1-minute on a busy night) exist for any member of the public to comment verbally on an agenda item (with a maximum of 6-minutes total of speaking time per meeting). When many policy decisions get combined into single items on the agenda, we are already severely limited in our ability to address them, simply because of the maximum time limits on our total speech. Time donation at least provides some measure of protection against having our voices silenced. It is helpful when one person wants to amplify the message of another, or if someone feels nervous to speak in front of a crowd but still has an important POV and will allow someone else to speak for them. Limiting our ability to speak by abolishing time donation - especially in a moment in time when we face increasingly harsh crackdowns on speech from the current federal administration - feels like the wrong solution to meeting length issues. Speaking publicly is the only way that we can know for sure that Council Members hear resident’s voices on important matters. Thank you, Vincent Esparza
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1162 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 7 David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Jordan Ellis
Resident of Sunset Park
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1163 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:34 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: In Support: Item 4.K
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
As a resident, voter, and parent, I am writing in support of making permanent the telephone option for public comment. This has the potential, backed up by the experience during the start of the pandemic, to open public participation more widely, especially to those who have various difficulties attending meetings in person, whether due to work or childcare schedules, disabilities, illnesses, etc.

Thank you,
Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Kara Fox <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: pam hausman
Subject: Please, vote NO NO NO

Let’s help our city, not destroy it. Thank you. Kara Fox, 235 14th street for more than 22 years.

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Pamela S. Hausman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: HELP!! VOTE NO!!!

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1166 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Maria Loya
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Susan Judd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 4K, 5/13/25-OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1168 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 12:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

Speaking publicly is the only way that we can know for sure that Council Members hear resident’s voices on important matters.

Thank you,
Will von Bernuth
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Leslie Wizan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 12:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE - 5/13/25 AGENDA ITEMS - 10A, 4J, 4K

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Susan Stangl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEMS 10A, 4J, 4K, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

Thank you!
Susan Stangl
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cindy Mollo <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 10:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Cynthia Mollo
2677 Centinela Avenue
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Lauren Marie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Friends of Sunset Park
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Lauren Wyka
821 Bay St.

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1173 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

Thank you,
Kelli Urode
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

It is helpful when one person wants to amplify the message of another, or if someone feels nervous to speak in front of a crowd but still has an important POV and will allow someone else to speak for them. Limiting our ability to speak by abolishing time donation - especially in a moment in time when we face increasingly harsh crackdowns on speech from the current federal administration - feels like the wrong solution to meeting length issues. Speaking publicly is the only way that we can know for sure that Council Members hear resident’s voices on important matters. Thank you, Phyllis Chavez
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ivana Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Ivana and Darko Suvak
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Cydney Kirschbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Cydney and Kenneth Kirschbaum
Sunset Park residents for over 30 years
Cydney Kirschbaum
[email protected]
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Mary Duprey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 7:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]; Dan Hall; Council Mailbox; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Mary Duprey
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Patty McCollim <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 7:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, We are concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Richard Sproul
& Patty McCollim
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 5 David Yakobson
From: Diane Sabatini <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 6:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Diane Sabatini
Diane Sabatini | 1801 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405 |
(c) 310.804.9811
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 6 David Yakobson
From: S V <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 5:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Sharon Cunningham
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 7 David Yakobson
From: Kenneth Legaux <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 3:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments. While I understand and appreciate that this item is being considered as part of a goal to shorten the length of Council meetings, which often run late into the night, time donation is an important part of our collective ability to make certain points and speak coherently as a group. Currently 2-minute time limits (sometimes already shortened to 1-minute on a busy night) exist for any member of the public to comment verbally on an agenda item (with a maximum of 6-minutes total of speaking time per meeting). When many policy decisions get combined into single items on the agenda, we are already severely limited in our ability to address them, simply because of the maximum time limits on our total speech. Time donation at least provides some measure of protection against having our voices silenced. It is helpful when one person wants to amplify the message of another, or if someone feels nervous to speak in front of a crowd but still has an important POV and will allow someone else to speak for them. Limiting our ability to speak by abolishing time donation - especially in a moment in time when we face increasingly harsh crackdowns on speech from the current federal administration - feels like the wrong solution to meeting length issues. Speaking publicly is the only way that we can know for sure that Council Members hear resident’s voices on important matters. Thank you, Kenneth Legaux Sunset Park
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 8 David Yakobson
From: Jon Gibson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

It is helpful when one person wants to amplify the message of another, or if someone feels nervous to speak in front of a crowd but still has an important POV and will allow someone else to speak for them. Limiting our ability to speak by abolishing time donation - especially in a moment in time when we face increasingly harsh crackdowns on speech from the current federal administration - feels like the wrong solution to meeting length issues. Speaking publicly is the only way that we can know for sure that Council Members hear resident’s voices on important matters. Thank you, Jonathan Gibson
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 9 David Yakobson
From: Robert Posek <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Robert Posek
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 10 David Yakobson
From: Michael Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Michael Fisher
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 11 David Yakobson
From: Margery Kratz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Margery Kratz
1205 Grant Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
———————————
Margery Kratz
310.463.4129 Cell
310.450.5461 Home
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 12 David Yakobson
From: Eric Garner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Recall: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Eric Garner would like to recall the message, "5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time DonationOPPOSE!".

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

Eric Garner
(He/Him)
Partner
[email protected]
T: (213) 787-2561 | C: (951) 544-2053
bbklaw.com |

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 13 David Yakobson
From: Eric Garner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
[YOUR NAME]
bbklaw
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Eric Garner
(He/Him)
Partner
[email protected]
T: (213) 787-2561 | C: (951) 544-2053
bbklaw.com |

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 14 David Yakobson
From: Tom Richards <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Tom Richards
2913 tenth st #1
Santa Monica 90405
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 15 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Dalila Fuentes
35 yr resident Sunset Park
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 16 David Yakobson
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Janet Tunick
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 17 David Yakobson
From: DARKO SUVAK <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Darko Šuvak
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 18 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-K - Abolishing Speaking Time Donation- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am concerned about and oppose the abolishing of "time donation" during public comments.

Thank you,
Ofer Grossman
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) 19 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 10:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; Elaine Polachek
Subject: City Council 5/13 agenda item 4-K -- Public Input question

EXTERNAL
May 9, 2025

To: Mayor Negrete and Council members

From: Zina Josephs

RE: 5/13/25 agenda item 4-K -- Public Input

"Members of the public will no longer be able to donate their time to another speaker."

What is the rationale for this proposed change?

Item 4-K
May 13, 2025
Item 4-K
May 13, 2025

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Written Comments (7075 : Council Rules) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.L
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Adding Municipal Code Section 2.32.300 Requiring Residency for DTSM, Pier Corp, and SMTT Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Introduce for first reading an ordinance adding Section 2.32.300 to the SMMC requiring resident representation for a minimum of half of Council appointees to non-profits; and

3. Apply the residency requirement to appointments and reappointments upon the resignation or expiration of current board member’s terms.

Summary
At the January 28, 2025, Council meeting, the City Council directed the City Attorney to return to Council with an ordinance codifying resident representation for Council appointees to the governing boards of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc., and the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Inc. and for the ordinance to be presented to Council so that the second reading and adoption can occur in advance of the annual boards and commissions appointments.

Discussion
Council appoints members to certain nonprofits that play an important role as community partners providing economic, cultural, and recreational opportunities for

4.L
Packet Pg. 1195
2 of 5
businesses, residents, and visitors.

Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.

Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM), is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting economic stability, growth, and community life within the Downtown District and Downtown of the City through responsible planning, development, management, and coordination of programs, projects, and services designed to benefit the community as a whole, including the District’s businesses, property owners, visitors, and residents.

The City Council appoints six directors to the 13-member DTSM board of directors, and board members must be City residents or persons who are employed, own property, or hold business licenses in the City of Santa Monica.

Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc.

Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc. (SMTT), works to strengthen the local economy by enhancing and promoting the community as a distinctive, compelling and welcoming travel destination. The City Council appoints five directors of the eleven-member SMTT board, and directors are drawn from Santa Monica’s community and business leadership.

Santa Monica Pier Corporation
Santa Monica Pier Corporation (SMPC) provides services to develop, implement, and maintain certain programs and functions in connection with the Santa Monica Pier, including marketing and promoting the Pier as a destination, producing community events, coordinating private special events, providing community outreach, monitoring street performers, and assisting the City with public review and discussion of planning and policy matters related to the Pier objectives. The City Council appoints all seven members to the SMPC board of directors, and members must either be residents of the City or do business or be employed in the City.

Resident representation on the governing boards of DTSM, SMTT, and SMPC is an asset to the community, as residents provide oversight and feedback on programming, operations, and leadership for these critical organizations that help steer the local economy and promote the Santa Monica band, history, and culture.

4.L
Packet Pg. 1196
3 of 5
While Council requested that this ordinance include a process for the Council to reappoint any Council appointed seats currently occupied by non-residents, as these are independent nonprofits, the director removal process is governed by state law and each organization’s bylaws. SMPC and DTSM’s bylaws allow that members appointed by Council may be removed without cause by a vote of five Councilmembers. SMTT”s bylaws do not contain such a provision.

Below is a list of current Council appointments to these non-profit organizations and their residency status based on the response applicants provided on their application. It is the City Manager’s recommendation that the residency requirement apply only to appointments and reappointments upon resignation or expiration of the term of currently serving board members.

Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
(Council-Appointed Members)
Name Term End
Date
Title *Santa
Monica
Resident
*Work in
Santa Monica
Lucian Tudor June 30,
2026
Member N** Y
Luke M. Cain June 30,
2026
Vice
Chair
Y Y
Leonid Pustilnikov June 30,
2026
Member N** Y
Berta Negari June 30,
2028
Vice
Chair
N** Y
Michelle Cardiel June 30,
2028
Member Y Y
Jon Farzam June 30,
2028
Member N** Y
*Based on response provided on application
**No home address provided on application

4.L
Packet Pg. 1197
4 of 5
Santa Monica Travel & Tourism, Inc.
(Council-Appointed Members)
Name Term End
Date
Title *Santa
Monica
Resident
*Work in
Santa Monica
Lauralee Asch June 30,
2025
Member –
Secretary
Y N
Neil Carrey June 30,
2025
Member Y N
Tim Defuria June 30,
2026
Member Y Y
Karen Ginsberg June 30,
2026
Member –
Treasurer
Y N
Darlene Evans June 30,
2026
Member Y Y
*Based on response provided on application
Santa Monica Pier Corporation
Name Term End
Date
Title *Santa
Monica
Resident
*Work in
Santa
Monica
Peter Trinh June 30,
2026
Member N Y
Carter Rubin June 30,
2026
Chair Y Y
Nicholas Rolston June 30,
2026
Member Y Y
Misti Kerns June 30,
2026
Member Y Y
Julieta Giner June 30,
2028
Member Y Y
David L. Newberg June 30,
2028
Member Y Y
Randi Parent June 30,
2028
Vice
Chair
Y N
*Based on response provided on application
Environmental Review
This report is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to

4.L
Packet Pg. 1198
5 of 5
Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” This report is administrative in nature, and no action is being undertaken. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate fiscal impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action.

Prepared By: Katie Doerr, Deputy City Attorney III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Residency Ordinance
B. Written Comments

4.L
Packet Pg. 1199
1 City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025 Santa Monica, California

ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA ADDING SECTION 2.32.300 REQUIRING RESIDENT

REPRESENTATION FOR COUNCIL APPOINTEES TO NON-PROFITS
WHEREAS, the Council appoints members to certain nonprofits that play an important role as community partners providing economic, cultural, and recreational opportunities for businesses, residents, and visitors; and WHEREAS, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM), is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting economic stability, growth, and community life within the Downtown District and Downtown of the City through responsible planning, development, management, and coordination of programs, projects, and services designed to benefit the community as a whole, including the District’s businesses, property owners, visitors, and residents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council appoints six directors to the 13-member DTSM board of directors, and board members must be City residents or persons who are employed, own property, or hold business licenses in the City of Santa Monica; and WHEREAS, Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc. (SMTT), works to strengthen the local economy by enhancing and promoting the community as a distinctive, compelling and welcoming travel destination; and
WHEREAS, the City Council appoints five directors of the eleven-member SMTT board, and directors are drawn from Santa Monica’s community and business leadership; and

4.L.a
Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: Residency Ordinance (7076 : Residency Ordinance) 2 WHERAS, the Santa Monica Pier Corporation (SMPC) provides services to develop, implement, and maintain certain programs and functions in connection with the Santa Monica Pier, including marketing and promoting the Pier as a destination, producing community events, coordinating private special events, providing community outreach, monitoring street performers, and assisting the City with public review and discussion of planning and policy maters related to the Pier objectives; and WHEREAS, the City Council appoints all seven members to the SMPC board of directors, and members must either be residents of the City or do business or be employed in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Council believes resident representation on the governing boards of DTSM, SMTT, and SMPC is an asset to the community, as residents provide oversight and feedback on programming, operations, and leadership for these critical organizations that help steer the local economy and promote the Santa Monica band, history, and culture; and
WHEREAS, since their respective foundings, each organization has been served by residents on their respective boards, who have presided over careful curation of programming that benefits the community; and
WHEREAS, without resident representation working in partnership with business leaders, industry experts, and property owners, the community loses a critical voice on the governing boards in setting the strategic direction for these organizations.

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

4.L.a
Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: Residency Ordinance (7076 : Residency Ordinance) 3 SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.32.300 is hereby added to read as follows:

2.32.300. Resident Representation for Council Appointees to Nonprofits A minimum of half of the City Council appointees to the governing boards of Downtown Santa Monica, Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc., and the Santa Monica Pier Corporation shall be residents of the City of Santa Monica.

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

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

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

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

4.L.a
Packet Pg. 1202 Attachment: Residency Ordinance (7076 : Residency Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:45 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE: SMCC 2025-05-13 Item 4.L. - Residency Requirement for DTSM, Pier Corp, and SM Travel and Tourism positions

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Given the City’s deepening financial crisis and lack of any coherent revenue strategy, I strongly urge you to oppose Item 4.L. requiring residency for DTSM, Pier Corp, and SM Travel and Tourism posiƟons.

It is imperaƟve that the City be laser focused on is anything that can assist in jumpstarƟng the city’s economic growth. Banning investors and business owners who have huge personal incenƟves to facilitate progress in turning this city’s economy around, solely on the basis of where they live, not only makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, it is completely counterproducƟve to the City’s objecƟves.

The siloed mismanagement of the city’s desƟnaƟon assets combined with the complete absence of a coherent commercial revitalizaƟon plan make the parƟcipaƟon of business people with direct personal incenƟves one of the only resources currently available to the City in its aƩempt at any kind of economic recovery.

Please do not approve this Item 4.L.

Thank you,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Chair, Santa Monica Audit SubcommiƩee
Item 4-L
May 13, 2025
Item 4-L
May 13, 2025

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1203 Attachment: Written Comments (7076 : Residency Ordinance) 1 January 28, 2025
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 28, 2025
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Negrete at 5:34 p.m., on Tuesday, January 28, 2025, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Lana Negrete
Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis
Councilmember Jesse Zwick
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: City Manager David White
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
City Clerk Nikima S. Newsome
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:34 p.m., with all members present. Councilmember Raskin led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
The City of Santa Monica is located on the land of Tovangaar. With great respect, the City acknowledges the Gabrieleño/Tongva as the First People of this ancestral and unceded territory of Kuruvungna, a village that we know as Santa Monica. We honor their elders, past and present, and the Gabrieleño descendants who are part of the Gabrieleño /Tongva tribes.

We recognize that these peoples are still here, and as settlers and kuyam (guests), we recognize our responsibility and obligation to care for their land in partnership with them. The City of Santa Monica commits to work in partnership with the Gabrieleño/Tongva people to uplift their voices and visibility on their ancestral land.

The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Zwick.

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is

4.M
Packet Pg. 1204 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 January 28, 2025
required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official.

Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well.

The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.

No Councilmembers recused themselves from items on the agenda pursuant to the Levine Act.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to hear the continued items with the 16 items. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to continue items 5.A., 5.S., and 14.A. to the February 11th Council meeting.

A substitute motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Zwick, to continue item 5.A. and 5.S. to the February 11th Council meeting and to move item 14.A. to be heard after the 16 items. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Zwick, to move items 10.A and 10.B. to be heard before item 7.A. The motion was passed by unanimous voice vote with all members present.

Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to continue items 16.A. through 16.F to the February 11th Council meeting.

The motion was passed by unanimous voice vote with all members present.

GENERAL PUBLIC
INPUT:

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to limit general public input to 1 minute per person. The motion was passed by a vote of 6-1 with Councilmember Hall casting a dissenting vote.

Members of the public Denise Baton, Corin Kahn, Johnathan Foster, Harvey Eder, Daniel Campbell, and Zoe Muntaner commented on various local issues.

4.M
Packet Pg. 1205 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 January 28, 2025

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

CLOSED SESSION,

SPECIAL AGENDA

ITEMS AND CONSENT
CALENDAR ONLY:

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to limit public input on closed session, special agenda items, and consent calendar to 1 minute per person. The motion passed by a vote of 5-2 with Councilmembers Raskin and Hall casting dissenting votes.

Members of the public Jerry Rubin, Bea Nemlaha, Ann Bowman, Lori Nafshun, Nina Fresco, Mario Fonda Bonardi, and John C. Smith commented on Closed Session items.

Member of the public Ericka Lesley commented on Special Agenda items.

Members of the public Melinda Smith Altshuler, Susan Broussard, Kora Peterson, Aaron Paley, Susan Jain, Carlo Siliotto, Carl Berg, Claudio Santini, Jason Ron, Krista Augius(time donated by Natalie Rafisiman), Yossi Govrin (time donated by Farhad Rafisiman), Jurgita Vanseviciute, Farnaz Haouni, and Marcus Kuiland Nazario commented on the consent calendar.

PROCLAMATIONS/

COMMENDATIONS/

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS

3.A. Proclamation: Black History Month, was presented.

3.B. City Manager Report, was presented.

CLOSED SESSIONS On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 7:01 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions and returned at 8:33 p.m., with all members present, to report the following:

4.A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Stanford Neighbors Against City Overreach v. City, et al; LASC # 24STCP02065
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

4.B. Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property - 1855 Main Street (Civic Auditorium) (APN 4290-013-901); City negotiators: Jennifer Taylor, Economic Development Manager, and Nia Tang, Economic Development Administrator; owner of record:

City of Santa Monica; parties to be negotiated with: Tim Sexton, Revitalization Partner Group, LLC; under negotiation: price and terms of payment for lease
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

4.C. Public employee appointment - Gov. Code § 54957(b): consider public employee appointment; title: City Manager/Interim City

4.M
Packet Pg. 1206 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 January 28, 2025
Manager; Gov. Code § 54957.6: conference with labor negotiator; City negotiator: Mayor/Personnel Director; unrepresented employee: City Manager/Interim City Manager
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

4.D. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Rebecca de la Cruz v. City; LASC # 20STCV01487 [report out only]
The City Attorney advised this matter was a personal injury case settled for $325,000, Settlement Agreement No. 11689 (CCS), with the City paying $225,000 and LandCare paying $100,000. Approved on 7/23/2024 by a vote of 6-0 with Mayor Pro Tem Negrete absent from the meeting.

4.E. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Maria Gonzalez v. City, et al; LASC # 23SMCV01759 [report out only]
The City Attorney advised this is a personal injury case, Settlement Agreement No. 11690 (CCS), settled for $150,000 approved on 12/17/2024 by a vote of 6-0 with Councilmember Snell absent from the meeting.

4.F. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE - Government Code Section 54957(b):

Consider the evaluation of performance of a public employee. Title: City Clerk
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

REPORT ON COUNCIL
TRAVEL
Mayor Negrete reported that she traveled to Washington, D.C. for the U.S.

Conference of Mayors.

CONSENT CALENDAR: All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

Items 5.A. and 5.S. were continued to the February 11, 2025, Council meeting.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Items 5.A. and 5.S., reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick

4.M
Packet Pg. 1207 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 January 28, 2025
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEES

5.B. Approval of Annual Reporting of Development Impact Fees and Adoption of Resolution Making Five-Year Findings as to the Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee and Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Review and accept the FY 2023-24 Annual Reporting of Development Impact Fees per the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code 66000-66025) and the FY 2023-24 Child Care Linkage Fee Report per SMMC Chapter 9.65; and

3. Approve and adopt the proposed resolution (Attachment B) making the necessary five-year findings for the Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee and the Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee.

SANTA MONICA

AIRPORT ARTS

PROGRAM

5.C. Award Request for Proposal to Community Arts Resources (CARS) to Manage Arts Program at Santa Monica Airport, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council:

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

2. Award RFP #143 to Community Arts Resources (CARS), a Los Angeles-based company, to manage the arts program at the Santa Monica Airport for the Recreation and Arts Department; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with CARS, in an amount not to exceed $250,000 per year (including a $50,000 contingency) (for one year, with four additional one-year renewal option(s) in the amount of $250,000 on the same terms and conditions) for a total amount not to exceed $1,250,000 over a 5-year period with future funding contingent on Council budget approval.

PIER ELECTRICAL

UTILITY RELOCATION

5.D. Award Construction Contract to Doty Bros. Equipment Company for Pier Electrical Utility Relocation, was approved.

Recommended Action

4.M
Packet Pg. 1208 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 January 28, 2025
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemptions pursuant to Sections 15301, 15302, 15303, and 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and find that the project was previously analyzed in the certified Santa Monica Pier Bridge Replacement Project Recirculated Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Assessment in accordance with CEQA; and

2. Award Bid #SP2741 to Doty Bros. Equipment Company for construction services for the Pier Electrical Utility Relocation Project for the Public Works Department;
Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Doty Bros. Equipment Company in an amount not to exceed $1,526,929 (including a 10% contingency).

CONSULTING SERVICES 5.E. Award Proposal and Enter into Agreement with Illuminating SOL Therapy Inc. for LEAD Program Master of Social Work Consultation Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the agreement is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. Award RFP# 412 to Illuminating SOL Therapy Inc. for Master of Social Work Consultation Services for the LEAD Program for the Police Department; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Illuminating SOL Therapy Inc. in an amount not to exceed $250,000 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

FALL PROTECTION

SERVICES

5.F. Approval of Second Modification to the Agreement with Safeguard US Inc. for Fall Protection Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to agreement #11149 in the amount of $1,524,350 (including a 15% contingency) with Safeguard US, Inc. to provide fall protection infrastructure in response to the findings of a fall hazard locations report conducted as part of the City’s Risk Management program. This will result in a five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $3,455,307 for

4.M
Packet Pg. 1209 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 January 28, 2025
Phase III, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

MEMORIAL PARK

REDEVELOPMENT AND

EXPANSION PROJECT

5.G. Approval of Seventh Modification with WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. to Provide Additional Scope of Work to the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the modification to the agreement is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a seventh modification to agreement #9910 (CCS) in the amount not to exceed $53,700 (including a 10% contingency) with WSP USA
Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. for additional environmental consulting services related to the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project. This will result in an amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $202,700, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

TRANSIT BUS REPAIRS 5.H. Award Contract to Western States Converters and Transmissions, Inc. for Transit Bus Allison Transmission Repairs, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award Bid #4492 to Western States Converters & Transmissions, Inc. to provide parts and repairs for transit bus Allison transmission systems for the Department of Transportation; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Western States Converters & Transmissions, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $902,500 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

FINAL TRACT MAP 5.I. Adoption of a Resolution Approving Final Tract Map No. 80306 for a 21-Unit Condominium Mixed-Use Project at 1448 7th Street, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council take following actions:

4.M
Packet Pg. 1210 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 January 28, 2025

1. Adopt a finding of Statutory Exemption (Approval of Final Subdivision Map) pursuant to Section 15268 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

2. Adopt the attached resolution approving Final Tract Map No. 80306.

CEMETERY PLOTS 5.J. Approval of purchase agreement to purchase thirty-five (35) cemetery plots back from the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a purchase and sale agreement with the Independent Order of Oddfellows, in an amount not to exceed $175,000 for the purchase of thirty-five (35) cemetery burial plots; and

3. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

EMERGENCY WEBSITE

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

5.K. Approval of Purchase Order to Lombiq Technologies Ltd. for Emergency Website Development Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Acknowledge the Procurement Manager’s authority to approve and issue a one-time emergency purchase order with Lombiq
Technologies Ltd. for emergency website development services for the Information Services Department. This purchase order was approved as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.250(i) and was for a total amount not to exceed $6,625.

CANNABIS RETAILER

OPERATING HOURS

5.L. Second Reading and Adoption of an Interim Zoning Ordinance Amending Interim Zoning Regulations Established by Interim Zoning Ordinance 2764 (CCS) and Extended by Interim Zoning Ordinance 2770 (CCS) to Extend the Operating Hours for the City’s Existing Cannabis Retailers Consistent with State Law, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

4.M
Packet Pg. 1211 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 January 28, 2025
MINUTES 5.M. Approval of Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting - May 14, 2024 5:30 PM, were approved.

MINUTES 5.N. Approval of Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting - Dec 10, 2024 5:30 PM, were approved.

MINUTES 5.O. Approval of Minutes of City Council - Special Meeting - Dec 23, 2024 8:30 AM, were approved.

MINUTES 5.P. Approval of Minutes of City Council - Special Meeting - Jan 10, 2025 2:30 PM, were approved.

MINUTES 5.Q. Approval of Minutes of City Council - Special Meeting - Jan 21, 2025 5:30 PM, were approved.

MINUTES 5.R. Approval of Minutes of City Council - Regular and Special Meeting - Dec 17, 2024 5:30 PM, were approved.

INTERIM MANAGER 5.T. Approval of Agreement for Service as Interim City Manager – Elaine Polachek, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15601(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Approve the two agreements with Elaine Polachek for her services as Interim City Manager; and

3. Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreements on behalf of the City.

SANTA MONICA

LEGISLATIVE

PLATFORMS

5.A. Approval of the City of Santa Monica Legislative Platforms for the 2025-2026 Federal and State Legislative Sessions, was continued to the February 11, 2025 Council meeting.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve the attached 2025-26 Federal and State Legislative Platform Drafts; and

2. Adopt a finding that the action above does not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

4.M
Packet Pg. 1212 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 10 January 28, 2025
ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS 5.S. Adoption of a Resolution Adopting a Policy Regarding Acceptance of Gifts by Councilmembers, was continued to the February 11, 2025 Council meeting.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Resolution adopting a policy regarding acceptance of gifts by Councilmembers.

PUBLIC INPUT ON

REMAINING AGENDA
ITEMS:

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to limit public input on remaining agenda items to 2 minutes for minors and 1 minute for adults. The motion was passed by a vote of 6-1 with Councilmember Hall casting a dissenting vote.

Members of the public Jack A. Abrams, Jerry Rubin, Neil Carrey, Denise Barton, Ellie Kay, Cody Kay, Michael Brodsky (time donated by Vivien Flitton), John Fairweather (time donated by Nicole Faries), Patti Braum (time donated by Erika Bell), Cristina Santiago, Robb Brown (time donated by Tina Tan), Lupe Stevenson, Cristina Navarro, Karen Ginsburg (time donated by Christine Harding), Diane Reynolds, Cris Guitierrez (time donated by Susan Jain), Steven Johnson, Liliana Hernandez, Roberton Mazariegos, Dylan Jericiau, Dean Kubani, Kathy Knight, Marlene Suzuki, Emmy Fay, Nicole Suzuki, Nickolaus Stevenson, Frank Gruber, Pam O’Connor, Claire Thomas, Andrew Wilder, Daphen Wilder, John Given, Alison Kendall, Matthew Hom, Vivian Rothstein, Andrew Moss, Louis Watanabe, Gina Frazier, Joanne Leslie, Joan Ling, Helen Sklar, Matthew Thorson, Lynn Naliboff, Dana Cuff, Penelope Mehra, Alan Levenson (time donated by Joseph Hardin), Karen Melick, John Cyrus Smith, Lisa Demsky, Miguel Lima, Blanca Malpartida-Girard, Ben Marcus (time donated by Alex Silver), Jose Palomares, Eve Lopez, Barbara Osborn, Daniel Tamm, Zina Josephs, Ann Bowman, Michael Soloff (time donated by Denny Zane), Ralph Mechur, and Ian Dutton commented on item 7.A.

Members of the public John C. Smith and Kyle Rebar commented on item

16.K.

Members of the public Kyle Rebar and Ian Dutton commented on item 16.L.

Members of the public Kathy Knight and Denise Barton commented on item

16.M.

STUDY SESSION:

SANTA MONICA

AIRPORT CONVERSION

PROJECT

7.A. Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Guiding Principles, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

4.M
Packet Pg. 1213 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 11 January 28, 2025

1. Adopt the finding that the recommended actions herein do not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15262, and 15306, and file a notice of exemption pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15062;

2. Hold a study session to review and comment on the five Guiding Principles for vetting and evaluating the feasibility of features, amenities, programs, technical performance requirements, financial strategies, phasing, and planning scenarios related to the closure of the Airport and alternative land-use scenarios post-closure (collectively, “the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project, or the Project”);

3. Consider the commencement of feasibility analysis for three planning scenarios for the Airport Conversion Project (“Phase 3”), based on the draft Guiding Principles; and

4. Provide direction to staff on how to proceed with respect to Phase 3 Questions asked and answered of staff includedwere: would any of the guiding principles preclude exploring housing as an option; was any random sampling of residents in Santa Monica done as part of outreach; is staff familiar with any research on which populations typically participate in community outreach; how can it be determined if the participants of the survey are representative of the entire community; how is the project engaging with Native people and Native tribes during the input process; how will potential conflicts within the guiding principles be reconciled; will there be further public engagement in phases 3A and 3B; how is what is being presented tonight going to tee up what will be presented to the public in phases 3A and 3B; does the city have the discretion to do something else; can phased uses be incorporated into the project timeline; are different types of financing models being evaluated; is there an example of how a public, recreational, cultural facility could be economically self sustaining; can the use of a building be changed to be of commercial use that is not currently a commercial building; if the city decides to go the route of an environmental impact report (EIR) process, will there be a proposed project and a reasonable range of economically and legally feasible alternatives, including potentially a no project alternative; at what point would the city need to do an EIR and what is the timeline and cost; if there are uses in the preferred scenario that would require a vote under Measure LC, at what point would it need to be put on the ballot; how will the city tease out the differences with these three scenarios; as it pertains to housing, how is the preference between deed restricted affordable housing versus market rate determined; in terms of commercial uses, how is the city teasing out differences between a public golf course versus cafes and beer gardens; is the city taking into account legal risks from the Surplus Lands Act; is the city consulting with HCD about future housing obligations; can small-scale commercial uses be explored without requiring a new ballot measure; and will housing be explored among

4.M
Packet Pg. 1214 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 12 January 28, 2025
the non LC compliant uses.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to concerns about an outdated definition of what environmentalism is based on the guiding principles; inserting a clause to state that the project design should consider the impact of any future intervention on the natural environment and its consequential life cycle, greenhouse gas reduction potential, as well as land’s ability to regenerate species and build community resilience against climate change; having a day one plan; needing a staged process as the city will be unable to implement or fund the final vision for what the land will inevitably be used for; exploring the feasibility of the three alternative scenarios; encouraging the use of a voting system that ranks choices or a preferential voting system instead of a simple plurality; concerns about the economic feasibility of the project; needing to meet people of color where they are instead of asking them to come to you; reminding the public of the realities of when this project will come to fruition; focusing on making more sports fields should the city go down the path of building a park; the value of mixing recreational space with commercial and housing; emphasizing the importance of the financial aspect; being realistic about the potential options financially; having a range of alternatives that do not result in the permanent sale of airport lands to private parties; needing a long term operation strategy when it comes to building a park and who is going to do it; the survey not being demographically representative of the Santa Monica community; and making sure renters and communities of color are better represented in future outreach.

CONTINUE MEETING
PAST 11:00 P.M.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to continue past 11:00 p.m. The motion was passed unanimously by voice vote with all members present.

CONTINUED ITEMS: Continued items were heard in conjunction with the 16 items.

8.A. Appointments to Vacant Seats on the Audit Subcommittee (CONTINUED FROM 12/17/2024), were made.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to appoint Councilmembers Snell, Zernitskaya, and Hall to the Audit Subcommittee. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present, thereby appointing them to the Audit Subcommittee with Councilmember Hall’s term ending on June 30, 2025 and Councilmembers Snells’s and Zernitskaya’s terms ending June 30, 2027.

8.B. Designate a Councilmember as a Governing Board
Representative to the Westside Cities Council of Governments (COG)

4.M
Packet Pg. 1215 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 13 January 28, 2025
and designate an Alternate Governing Board Representative. The Joint Powers Authority and By-laws require each City Council to designate one of its Councilmembers as a Governing Board Representative and one Councilmember as an Alternate Governing Board Representative. (CONTINUED FROM 12/17/2024), were made.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to nominate Councilmember Zwick as Governing Board Representative and Mayor Negrete as the Alternate Governing Board Representative. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present, thereby appointing them to the COG.

8.C. Designation of City's voting delegate and alternate to Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 60th Annual Regional Conference and General Assembly Business Meeting from May 1-2, 2025 at the JW Marriott Desert Springs Resort & Spa in Palm Desert, CA (CONTINUED FROM 12/17/2024), were made.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Motion by Councilmember Snell, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to nominate Mayor Negrete as voting delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis as the alternate. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present, thereby designating them to attend the SCAG Conference.

8.D. Designation of a Councilmember to the Independent Cities Association (CONTINUED FROM 12/17/2024), were made.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Motion by Mayor Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to nominate Mayor Negrete as delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis as the alternate.

Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present, thereby appointing them to the ICA.

8.E. Designation of voting delegate and alternate(s) for the CalCities Annual Conference and Expo, to be held October 8 -10, 2025, in Long Beach, California. (CONTINUED FROM 12/17/2024), were made.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Motion by Councilmember Snell, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to nominate Mayor Negrete as voting delegate and Councilmember Zernitskaya as the alternate. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote

4.M
Packet Pg. 1216 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 14 January 28, 2025
with all members present, thereby designating them to attend the CalCities Annual Conference.

DISABILITIES

COMMISSION

8.F. Appointment to three unscheduled vacancies on the Disabilities Commission for two seat terms ending on June 30, 2025 and one on June 30, 2026. (CONTINUED FROM 1/23/2024 and 3/19/2024), were made.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Mayor Pro Tem Torosis nominated Arlene Frames and Mila Royale.

Arlene Frames and Mila Royale were appointed unanimously by acclamation, with all members present.

TRANSIENT

OCCUPANCY TAX

8.G. Appointment to one seat on the Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee for a partial-term ending on 6/30/2025. (CONTINUED FROM 5/24/2023), was continued to a future meeting.

ORDINANCES:

ISSUANCE OF

PROHIBITION ORDERS

10.A. Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.36 to establish provisions for the issuance of prohibition orders for the Santa Monica Department of Transportation pursuant to Sections 99171 and 99172 of the Public Utilities Code, was introduced and held first reading.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.36 to establish provisions for the issuance of prohibition orders, and to create a prohibition order advisory committee to the Santa Monica Department of Transportation, pursuant to recent amendments to State Law adopted by SB 1417.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: how does a driver know if a rider has a citation; how large will the advisory committee be; and is there a way to cross reference a rider’s name when they pay the bus fare with a TAP card.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya,

4.M
Packet Pg. 1217 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 15 January 28, 2025
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

USE OF CITY SEAL AND

SYMBOLS

10.B. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 2.32.020 Concerning Use of the City Seal and Other City Symbols, was introduced and held first reading.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending Section 2.32.020 concerning the use of the City Seal and other City symbols.

Question asked and answered of staff included if an image of the seal and logo could be included in the municipal code.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

EMERGENCY INTERIM

ZONING ORDINANCE

10.C. Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extending Interim Zoning Regulations Established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2796 (CCS) Exempting City Projects From Temporary Use Permit Requirements During a Declared Local or State of Emergency, was continued to the February 11, 2025 Council meeting.

Recommended Actions
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and 15303 (New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

2. Introduce and Adopt an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance to Extend Interim Zoning Regulations Established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2796 (CCS) Exempting Projects on CityOwned Property and that Use City Funds From Temporary Use Permit Requirements During a Declared Local or State of Emergency.

4.M
Packet Pg. 1218 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 16 January 28, 2025
STAFF

ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:

SAFETY ELEMENT

12.A. Adoption of Amended Safety Element of City’s General Plan; Introduction and First Reading of Ordinances to Require Environmental Site Assessments for Multiple-Unit Dwellings in Nonresidential Zoning Districts and to Designate City Hall East as an Essential Facility for Consistency with the Amended Safety Element, was continued to the February 11, 2025 Council meeting.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Adopt Resolution to Adopt an Amended Safety Element of the City’s General Plan;

3. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending the Text of Section 9.31.195 of the Zoning Ordinance for Consistency with the Amended Safety Element; and

4. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending the Text of Section 8.12.040 of the Building Code for Consistency with the Amended Safety Element.

RESOLUTIONS:

COUNCIL RULES AND

PROCEDURES

14.A. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Council Rules of Procedure, was presented.

Recommended Action
Adopt the attached resolution amending the Council Rules of Procedure pursuant to Council direction.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to rank choice voting for boards and commissions, allowing staff time to find solutions to implement rank choice voting and Councilmember discussion time limits; removing the provision regarding rules governing the use of title by the Mayor Pro Tem in Rule 9(c); and reading into the record a provision to break ties or when there are only two nominees to a seat on a board or commission.

Motion by Councilmember Zernitskaya, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

4.M
Packet Pg. 1219 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 17 January 28, 2025

COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:

In accordance with Council Rule 6(x), all Councilmember Discussion items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

In accordance with Council Rule 6(x), items 16.G, 16.H, and 16.I were heard separately.

Motion by Mayor Negrete, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, to approve items 16.J through 16.N. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present.

HUMAN SERVICES

COMMISSION

16.A. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Human Services Commission for a term ending on June 30, 2027, was continued to the February 11, 2025 Council meeting.

PERSONNEL BOARD 16.B. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Personnel Board for a term ending on June 30, 2026, was continued to the February 11, 2025 Council meeting.

PUBLIC SAFETY

REFORM AND

OVERSIGH

COMMISSION

16.C. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission for a term ending on June 30, 2027, was continued to the February 11, 2025 Council meeting.

RECREATION AND

PARKS COMMISSION

16.D. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Recreation and Parks Commission for a term ending on June 30, 2026, was continued to the February 11, 2025 Council meeting.

SANTA MONICA PIER

CORPORATION

16.E. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Santa Monica Pier Corporation for a term ending on June 30, 2026, was continued to the February 11, 2025 Council meeting.

SANTA MONICA

TRAVEL AND TOURISM,
INC.

16.F. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc. for a term ending on June 30, 2026, was continued to the February 11, 2025 Council meeting.

TRANSIENT

OCCUPANCY TAX

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

16.G. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee for a term ending on June 30, 2025, was heard.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Dennis Puri was appointed unanimously by acclamation, with all members present.

4.M
Packet Pg. 1220 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 18 January 28, 2025

RECREATION AND

PARKS COMMISSION

16.H. Recommendation to accept Greg Morena's resignation from the Recreation and Parks Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy, was accepted.

Motion by Councilmember Snell, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, to accept the resignation with regret.

The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

DESIGNATION OF

VOLTING DELEGATE

16.I. Designation of voting delegate and alternate for the Los Angeles County Division of CalCities, was heard.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.

Motion by Mayor Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to nominate Mayor Negrete as voting delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis as the alternate. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present, thereby appointing them to the Los Angeles Division of CalCities.

RESIDENT

REPRESENTATION FOR

COUNCIL APPOINTEES

16.J. Request of Councilmembers Hall and Snell for Council to direct the City Attorney to return with an ordinance codifying resident representation for Council appointees to the governing boards of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc., and the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Inc, was approved.

16.K. Request of Councilmembers Hall, Snell, and Mayor Pro Tempore Torosis for Council to direct the City Attorney to return with an ordinance that amends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

4.08.095 prohibiting certain comfort items for unhoused individuals, was approved.

DETERRENCE OF

DANGEROUS DRIVING

16.L. Request of Councilmembers Zwick and Hall that the City Council direct the City Manager to work with the Chief of Police to prioritize the deterrence of dangerous driving within Santa Monica that poses an immediate threat to the safety of residents. Specifically, the department shall 1) prioritize a greater number of high-visibility enforcement operations against dangerous driving, 2) provide data reporting to City Council and the public on an ongoing quarterly basis detailing the monthly total number of Traffic/Vehicle Stops and enforcement actions, including subtotals for each moving violation, as well as a comprehensive breakdown of data and trends in city traffic enforcement from 2019 through 2024 as part of the department’s annual report to City Council, and 3) develop a proposal as part of the 25/26 budget process to restore the department’s traffic enforcement capabilities and outcomes to pre-2020 levels, was approved with direction

4.M
Packet Pg. 1221 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 19 January 28, 2025
to add the inclusion of obscured and missing license plates.

AFTER ACTION REVIEW 16.M. Request of Councilmember Hall and Mayor Pro Tempore Torosis, that, in order to accurately capture lessons learned during the City’s response to the Palisades Fire and to better prepare for the next natural disaster or emergency crisis, the Council direct the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk’s Offices to conduct an After Action Review across all City Departments and to return to Council no later than 12 months from now with a public report, improvement action items, and implementation plan, was approved.

DIVERSE HOUSING

CHOICES

16.N. Request of Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, and Hall that, in conjunction with necessary updates arising out of SB 450, and in order to facilitate diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas, the City Council directs the City Manager and the City Attorney to return with an ordinance to amend the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential by: (1) removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes, (2) allowing one roof deck per unit, and (3) ensuring that no standard within this ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs, of at least 1200 square feet each. One year after implementation, city staff shall return with a report on any impacts of the ordinance, as amended, including data on net new housing units permitted, effects on displacement (if any), concentration of ownership, and other pertinent information to evaluate its success in affirmatively furthering fair housing and creating more affordable “missing middle” homes, was approved.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 12:36 a.m. in memory of Judith Mershon.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Nikima S. Newsome Lana Negrete
City Clerk Mayor

4.M
Packet Pg. 1222 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 28, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 1 April 29, 2025
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 29, 2025
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Negrete at 5:31 p.m., on Tuesday, April 29, 2025, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, and a Teleconference Site in Washington, DC 20001.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Lana Negrete
Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis (arrived at 5:39 p.m.)
Councilmember Jesse Zwick (arrived at 5:32 p.m.)
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya (joined remotely at 5:39 p.m.) Also Present: Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
Assistant City Clerk Maria Dacanay-Wisner

CONVENE/PLEDGE
(Councilmember Zwick
arrived at 5:32 p.m.)
On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:31 p.m., with all members present except Councilmembers Zwick and Zernitskaya, and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis. Councilmember Hall led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Raskin.

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
(GC Section 84308)
No Councilmember made Levine Act disclosures.

REPORT ON COUNCIL
TRAVEL
Last week, Mayor Negrete attended the League of California Cities’ 2025 City Leaders Summit and attended sessions on housing, Proposition 36, public safety and transparency; and met with state legislators.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR
CLOSED SESSION ONLY:

No members of the public commented on Closed Session items.

4.N
Packet Pg. 1223 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 April 29, 2025

CLOSED SESSIONS
(At 5:39 p.m., Mayor Pro
Tem Torosis arrived and
Councilmember Zernitskaya
joined remotely)
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 5:39 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions and adjourned from Closed Session at 8:30 p.m. with all members present:

5.A. Public employee appointment - Gov. Code § 54957(b): consider public employee appointment; title: City Manager; Gov. Code § 54957.6: conference with labor negotiator; City negotiator:

Mayor/Personnel Director; unrepresented employee: City Manage This matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Maria Dacanay-Wisner Lana Negrete
Assistant City Clerk Mayor

4.N
Packet Pg. 1224 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 1 May 3, 2025
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 3, 2025
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Negrete at 8:05 a.m., on Saturday, May 3, 2025, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, and a Teleconference Site in Washington, DC 20037.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Lana Negrete
Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis (arrived via teleconference at 8:05 a.m.) Councilmember Jesse Zwick (arrived at 8:05 a.m.)
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
City Clerk Nikima S. Newsome
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 8:05 a.m., with all members present except Councilmember Zwick and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis. Councilmember Snell led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Hall.

4.O
Packet Pg. 1225 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 3, 2025 8:00 AM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 May 3, 2025

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official.

Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well.

No Councilmembers made any disclosures pursuant to the Levine Act.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR
CLOSED SESSION ONLY:

No members of the public commented on Closed Session items.

CLOSED SESSIONS
(Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and
Councilmember Zwick
arrived at 8:05 a.m.)
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 8:08 a.m., to consider Closed Sessions and adjourned at 6:02 p.m., with no reportable action.

5.A. Public employee appointment - Gov. Code § 54957(b): consider public employee appointment; title: City Manager; Gov. Code § 54957.6: conference with labor negotiator; City negotiator:

Mayor/Personnel Director; unrepresented employee: City Manager ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Nikima S. Newsome Lana Negrete
City Clerk Mayor

4.O
Packet Pg. 1226 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 3, 2025 8:00 AM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 5.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with labor negotiator - Gov. Code § 54957.6: agency designated representatives: Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek, Human Resources Director Dana Brown, and Human Resources Manager Sarah Rebensdorf; bargaining units: Administrative Team Associates (ATA), AFSCME Local 4819- Management Team Association (MTA), California Teamsters Local 911 (IBT), Municipal Employees Association (MEA), Public Attorney’s Legal Support Staff Union (PALSSU), Public Attorney’s Union (PAU), Santa Monica Fire Executive Management Association (FEMA), Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109 (LOCAL 1109), Police Officers Association (POA), Supervisory Team Association (STA) and SMART TD - International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division, Local 1785 (SMART TD)
Prepared By: Andrew Cabello, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council

5.C
Packet Pg. 1227
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 11
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Arminé Chaparyan, Director, Administration
Subject: Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance Adding Chapter 6.43 and Amending Section 4.08.200 Relating to the Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Program
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Introduce and Adopt an Emergency Ordinance Adding Chapter 6.43 and Amending Section 4.08.200 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code Relating to the Promenade Entertainment Zone Program to Promote Economic Recovery.

Summary
On April 22, 2025, Council reviewed staff’s proposal to establish an Entertainment Zone on the Third Street Promenade and provided the following direction for revisions to the proposed ordinance:
• Make the program permanent instead of a pilot,
• Expand the program by changing to a seven days per week program allowing activations from 8am – 2am so that it allows a regular and predictable activation instead of only event-based,
• Work with Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM) and other partners on marketing incentives, branding, sponsorship opportunities, and technical assistance,
• Provide initial evaluation report to Council six months from the activation of the Entertainment Zone,

10.A
Packet Pg. 1228
2 of 11
• Continue to work on simplifying the events permitting process and reducing the cost of conducting events within the Promenade Entertainment Zone, and • Consider potential expansion of the Entertainment Zone boundaries to crossstreets.

Staff evaluated the possibility of a geographic expansion of the Entertainment Zone (e.g. to include alleys, Second Street, Fourth Street, or Ocean Avenue) but after consultation with DTSM, ultimately the DTSM Board voted at their April 24, 2025 meeting to focus on the Promenade only. Security concerns were also expressed by both the DTSM Board, DTSM staff, and the City’s police department about the ability to manage consumption of alcoholic beverages if the boundaries of the Entertainment Zone were expanded including concerns about managing alcohol consumption in alleys which are open to vehicle traffic. As a result, the Entertainment Zone is focused only on the Third Street Promenade. Public safety considerations and recommendations are also summarized in this report. The attached ordinance is responsive to Council direction and includes the following revised provisions:
• Allow activation of the entertainment zone within the maximum hours of 8AM to 2AM
o Note that the hours for any activation could be less than these maximum hours if needed to address public safety concerns arising from activations of the Entertainment Zone
• 6-month evaluation from date of first activation of the Entertainment Zone. This report would evaluate the effect of the Entertainment Zone on key metrics such as:
o Crime rates
o Calls for service
o Impacts on revenue for businesses in the Entertainment Zone o Foot traffic on the Promenade
o Business surveys

10.A
Packet Pg. 1229
3 of 11
Once passed, the ordinance will take immediate effect with a program launch that could be as soon as early June but would be dependent on DTSM and the City having the appropriate operational and security safeguards (e.g. appropriate signage on the Promenade and alcohol safety training for participating businesses) in place to ensure a safe and successful patron experience. Staff anticipates outreach to Promenade businesses who have alcohol licenses to provide education about the program and how to participate. The regular activation will allow any individual business on the Promenade that is licensed to serve alcohol to easily participate in the Entertainment Zone by notifying ABC of their participation, signing a simple one-page participation agreement agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions of the ordinance and management plan, and receive free wristbands provided by the City for the purposes of identifying customers over 21 years of age. This regular activation will be augmented by the Entertainment Zone’s launch event, anticipated to be Pride on the Promenade on June 21, 2025. The following diagram provides a general overview of the rollout process for the daily activation of the Entertainment Zone:

10.A
Packet Pg. 1230
4 of 11
Figure 1: General Process Overview of Promenade Entertainment Zone Rollout Discussion
The proposed Entertainment Zone hours of 8AM to 2AM are in line with the hours permitted by administrative alcohol entitlements issued on the Promenade and provide flexibility for accommodating things like international sporting events early in the morning and holidays that may not predictably fall on weekends. However, of the 13 existing establishments licensed to serve alcohol on the Promenade only six advertise hours past 10PM on weekends. Even with the proposed hours, it is not anticipated that every business will take advantage of being open 18 hours per day, seven days per week. The following diagrams show all businesses that hold alcohol licenses on the Promenade by block.

10.A
Packet Pg. 1231
5 of 11
Figure 2: Businesses Holding Alcohol License on 1200 Block of Promenade Figure 3: Businesses Holding Alcohol License on 1300 Block of Promenade (note that Westside Comedy Theater entrance is on alley and not eligible to participate in Entertainment Zone)

10.A
Packet Pg. 1232
6 of 11
Figure 4: Businesses Holding Alcohol License on 1400 Block of Promenade While it is impossible to predict exactly what will happen with this first-of-its-kind activation in Southern California, City services are not anticipating substantial operational changes associated with the daily activation of the Entertainment Zone but are preparing for a successful program that brings significant patron participation. The Promenade Maintenance team noted that their shifts end around 10PM so near term there may be a need for more trash receptacles for the to-go cups generated, especially after their shift ends until 2AM. As nightlife and crowds increase, staffing levels may also need to be returned to prior levels (approximately 10-15 years ago) when maintenance on weekend night shifts was extended with two hours of overtime until midnight. Further, Resource Recovery and Recycling staff have indicated that if a daily activation of the Entertainment Zone requires a second collection and emptying of bins in the parking structures (in order to minimize scavenging, dumpster fire, and public health issues), this may result in additional overtime of $618/day based on today’s staffing costs. If that is needed over the course of a year, that could potentially result in overtime totaling $225,000 annually. Staff would need to further work on how these costs could be charged to participating businesses if it is found that the Entertainment Zone activation is resulting in need for additional City services.

Public Safety Considerations

10.A
Packet Pg. 1233
7 of 11
Before enacting an Entertainment Zone ordinance, State law (Business and Professional Code Section 25962) requires notification of local law enforcement to request feedback regarding:
(1) Potential health and safety impacts that might be generated by the Entertainment Zone and strategies to mitigate those impacts; and
(2) The Entertainment Zone’s proposed boundaries, days and hours of operation, types of alcohol beverages permitted, and approved non-glass and non-metal containers.

Staff consulted with the Police Department, Fire Department, and Public Works as essential partners in implementing the Entertainment Zone. All city departments are dedicated to revitalizing the Third Street Promenade and are committed to ensuring the success of the Entertainment Zone. However, there are some issues that staff would like to bring to Council's attention:
• Hours and Security at closing time: Consideration of adjusting hours to start at noon Monday – Friday and 10AM on Saturday and Sunday as SMPD staffing does not peak until closer to noon; maintain private security presence particularly at closing time (up to 2AM)
o Recommended Implementation:
▪ SMPD already staffs overtime to the downtown area Friday, Saturday, and Sundays
• 2 officers 11AM-8PM
• 4 officers, 1 sergeant 6PM-2:30AM
▪ DTSM confirmed that private security teams begin at 6AM ▪ DTSM Security needs to monitor the east/west cross streets between Wilshire and Broadway to ensure that patrons do not wander beyond the Third Street Promenade with open containers of alcohol
▪ DTSM confirmed that they are able to shift deployment of private security to extend to 2AM on the Promenade

10.A
Packet Pg. 1234
8 of 11
• Starting Hours Alternatives: A process to request to activate the Entertainment Zone as early as 8AM if it coincides with Promenade major events such as parades, festivals, watch parties, or televised international sporting events (e.g. soccer games, international baseball or football games) will be included in the management plan.
• Signage: Signage to delineate the boundaries of the Entertainment Zone so that customers are clear about where public consumption of alcohol is not allowed o Recommended Implementation
▪ DTSM confirmed that they will be providing area appropriate signage and large, well-defined ground stickers both at perimeter and within the Entertainment Zone
Regarding the Entertainment Zone hours, staff recommends that the ordinance maintain the maximum allowable hours of 8AM to 2AM as hours can be modified to be more restrictive in the management plan associated with any activation of the Entertainment Zone in order to address any operational limitations.

Breakdown of Typical Event Costs for Third-Party Organizers As a follow-up to Council’s request for information regarding the City costs that may be associated with an event, the following table provides a breakdown for event costs assuming a typical 8-hour event:

Department Estimated
Approximate Cost
Approximate Staffing
Assumption for 8-hour
event
Fire Department $2,412.10a 1 Fire Safety Officer
Police Department $3,304.96b-
$7,730.24c per
block
4 Police Officers per block
Public Works – Promenade
Maintenance
$2,300d 1 additional Promenade
staff, per shift, per block
running two shifts between
5AM to 10:30PM

10.A
Packet Pg. 1235
9 of 11
Department Estimated
Approximate Cost
Approximate Staffing
Assumption for 8-hour
event
Public Works – RRR $1,500 (varies
depending on scale
of event)e
Note that events
anticipated to exceed 1,500
people will require event
organizer to use private
hauler instead
Estimated Approximate Total
Cost Range $9,517.06 - $13,942.34
a 8 hour event plus one hour prior to the event start (9 hours total) costs $2,412.10 b Overtime rate for city-sponsored event is $103.28/hr (32 hours of overtime total) costs $3,304.96 c Overtime rate for third-party special event is $241.57/hr (32 hours of overtime total) costs $7,730.24 d Overtime rate is $49/hour or $393 per shift for pre- and post-event cleaning e Costs may include permit fee, costs for containers, and extra solid waste, recyclables, and organics collection
Note that the above costs may be waived if the event is City produced or co-produced.

In the past two years, DTSM has produced 57 events and paid nominal fees or had fees waived (including 2024 Pride on the Promenade). For comparison there have been four non-DTSM events organized by third parties. As mentioned in the April 22, 2025 staff report, interdepartmental collaboration on identifying ways of simplifying the events permitting process will continue as part of the Entertainment Zone program.

Tracking Success
To track the success of the Entertainment Zone, Community Development staff will coordinate an evaluation report in consultation with key partners six months after activation of the Entertainment Zone. DTSM has agreed to share data including Promenade foot traffic, calls for service for private security, as well as surveys of local business owners to under revenue impacts to augment the sales tax data available to the City. Police and Fire will also provide additional metrics such as crime rates and calls for service to illuminate how safety on the Promenade has been affected.

Alternatives
Concerns have been raised by residents that would be most immediately impacted by implementation of the Entertainment Zone including concerns about noise generated by

10.A
Packet Pg. 1236
10 of 11
events and businesses on the Promenade. Code Enforcement staff have been diligently investigating complaints and businesses are directed to point any speakers away from the residential neighborhood. In order to address concerns, should Council wish to consider a different approach to the Entertainment Zone, the following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:

1. Do not adopt the proposed Entertainment Zone ordinance;

2. Adopt a modified Entertainment Zone ordinance to be event-based (same as ordinance proposed on April 22, 2025); or

3. Modify the proposed ordinance to limit its activation (e.g. different boundaries, different days and/or maximum allowable hours). For example, in order to mitigated potential impacts to the residential neighborhood immediately north of the Promenade, Council could limit the maximum allowable hours of the Entertainment Zone in the Promenade’s 1200 Block to less than 2AM or limit the days that the Entertainment Zone could be activated.

Environmental Review
The ordinance to establish an Entertainment Zone in the Downtown is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301/Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The ordinance to establish an Entertainment Zone would not increase development or expand the existing use, but rather, would relax certain land use restrictions, streamline alcohol permits for existing restaurants, and authorize street parklets and use of outdoor private space for commercial activity. These provisions of the ordinance would not result in adverse environmental impacts. None of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 would apply. Therefore, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 and no further environmental review is required.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions

10.A
Packet Pg. 1237
11 of 11
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Event organizers will be responsible for covering all costs associated with the events. Further, potential impacts to City services associated with the daily activation of the Entertainment Zone will be monitored as part of program evaluation. Should there be impact on City services, adjustments can be made in the management plan to ensure that participating businesses are responsible for covering costs. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Entertainment Zone Ordinance_May 13
B. Written Comments

10.A
Packet Pg. 1238
1 City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING CHAPTER 6.43 AND AMENDING SECTION 4.08.200 OF

THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

AN ENTERTAINMENT ZONE TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC RECOVERY
WHEREAS, the economic downturn starting with the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated by the recent Southern California wildfires, and continuing economic challenges nationwide, have had a devastating impact on Santa Monica’s restaurants, bars, and entertainment venues. Finding new ways to attract residents, workers, and visitors to our downtown and neighborhood commercial corridors will be critical to the continued recovery of our nightlife sector and our economy; and WHEREAS, across the country, numerous states, including Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, and Kansas, have found success enlivening communities through the designation of areas where businesses may sell alcoholic beverages for consumption within public spaces adjacent to their licensed premises; and WHEREAS, in 2025, the State of California adopted Senate Bill 969, which authorizes cities and counties to create by ordinance Entertainment Zones to enable restaurants and bars to sell open containers of approved alcoholic beverages for consumption within Entertainment Zones; and
WHEREAS, the City has an important government interest in maintaining a thriving business community and protecting the health, safety, and economic welfare of its citizens and businesses; and

Santa Monica City CouncilMay 13, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
May 13, 2025