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

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 2382 Attachment: Presentation Item (6801 : Housing Updates and Ordinances) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointments to three seats on the Transit Security Advisory Committee for terms ending June 30, 2027. (CONTINUED FROM 4/22/2025)
Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.A
Packet Pg. 2383
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Transit Security Advisory Committee
Name Application Date
*Adams, Gregory L. 04/14/2025
Bell, Maurice 04/09/2025
Costello, Edward 04/09/2025
Foy Jr., Frederick W. 05/07/2025
Kaplan, Jennifer 04/09/2025
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 5
* Not eligible

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 2384 Attachment: Applicant List (7064 : 16.A. Appointments to the Transit Security Advisory Committee. (CONTINUED FROM 4/22/2025) (5 Min)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee for a term ending on June 30, 2025.

Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.B
Packet Pg. 2385
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens
Oversight Committee
Name Application Date
Charles, Jeffrey M. 03/26/2025
Clark, Marion 03/20/2025
McDade, Denise 03/11/2025
Shadchina, Larissa 07/08/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 4

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 2386 Attachment: Applicant List (7065 : 16.B. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the CBOPTCOC (5 Min)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Recommendation to accept Danielle Goller's resignation from the Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy.

Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Resignation Email

16.C
Packet Pg. 2387

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 2388 Attachment: Resignation Email (7084 : 16.C. Recommendation to accept Danielle Goller's resignation ( 5 Min)) 3 Best Regards,
Luis Hernandez
Executive Administrative Assistant
Finance Department
(310) 458-2201 ext. 5078
From: Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 6:46 PM
To: Danielle Goller
Cc: David Yakobson <[email protected]>; Luis Hernandez <[email protected]> Subject: TOT Advisory Committee

Good afternoon, Commissioner Goller,
The meeting tonight was cancelled due to a lack of quorum. I was able to speak with the other members and they mentioned that you may be resigning from the commission.

If this is correct, would you please forward us your email/letter of resignation at [email protected].

Thank you.

Esterlina Lugo, CMC

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 2389 Attachment: Resignation Email (7084 : 16.C. Recommendation to accept Danielle Goller's resignation ( 5 Min)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request by Mayor Negrete that the City Council consider taking an “Oppose Unless Amended” position on Assembly Bill 306 (Schultz), which, as currently written, would impose a six-year moratorium on any changes to the building code that affect residential buildings; and direct the City Manager to prepare a letter requesting the following amendments: 1) Exclude existing residential buildings from the moratorium, so that it would apply only to newly constructed housing. This change would allow the City to continue its critical work to de-carbonize older housing stock, increasing energy efficiency, reducing monthly utility costs, and improving health and quality of life for current residents; and 2) Clarify that local governments can adopt the existing 2025 State Building Code language currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2026; and that the California Building Standards Commission, and other adopting agencies, may consider and approve modifications to the 2031 State Building Code, prior to the June 1, 2031 date stated in the current bill language. This clarification is consistent with the author’s intent to pause only one triannual building code cycle. Further, direct the City Manager to work with the City’s legislative advocate to articulate the need for these amendments and to send the letter to the bill’s author, Senator Allen, and Assemblymember Zbur.

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

A. City of West Hollywood AB 306 Opposed Unless Amended Letter B. AB 306, CalCCA Oppose Unless Amended, 04 28 25

16.D
Packet Pg. 2390
2 of 2
C. 202520260AB306_Assembly Floor Analysis (5)
D. 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) E. 202520260AB306_Assembly Appropriations (1)
F. 20250417-Bill Status - AB-306 Building regulations_ state building standards_

16.D
Packet Pg. 2391
April 9, 2025
Hon. Nick Schultz
California State Assembly
1021 O St., Ste. 5150
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 306 Building regulations: state building standards, as amended March 19, 2025. OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED
Dear Assemblymember Schultz,
The City of West Hollywood must regrettably oppose your Assembly Bill (AB) 306 Building regulations: state building standards, unless it is amended.

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

City Hall
8300 Santa Monica Blvd.

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

CITY COUNCIL

CHELSEA LEE BYERS
Mayor

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

LAUREN MEISTER
Councilmember
City of
West Hollywood

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 2392 Attachment: City of West Hollywood AB 306 Opposed Unless Amended Letter (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) As we experience more extreme weather events like high heat and storms resulting from climate change, there is a greater need to improve the maintenance, performance, and resiliency of existing buildings for our residents.

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

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

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

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

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

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 2393 Attachment: City of West Hollywood AB 306 Opposed Unless Amended Letter (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) April 28, 2025
Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair
Senate Committee on Housing
1021 O Street, Room 3330
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 306 (Schultz and Rivas) - Oppose Unless Amended
Dear Chair Wahab:

The California Community Choice Association (CalCCA), representing 24 operational community choice aggregators (CCAs) serving more than 14 million people in over 200 cities and counties throughout California, writes to respectfully oppose unless amended AB 306, authored by Speaker Rivas and Assemblymember Schultz, which would impose a moratorium on the adoption or modification of new state and local building standards affecting residential units from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions.

We commend and share the authors' intent to speed the construction of homes to rebuild after the Los Angeles wildfires and increase housing supply across the state. Streamlining requirements to increase new construction can be accomplished without adversely affecting efforts to advance decarbonization in existing construction, providing homes and businesses that lower cost, increase health, and reduce pollution. These efforts can help the state reach its essential and ambitious decarbonization goals and realize significant clean energy job growth.

To ensure that California can continue to move toward both its housing and environmental goals, we respectfully request the following amendments:
1) Apply AB 306 to new construction only: The current language broadly applies to new and existing homes. If the goal of AB 306 is to increase the housing supply, applying this bill to existing homes does not impact that goal.

By narrowing the bill to new construction, local governments can continue to advance codes like requiring air conditioning units to be replaced by heat pumps when a unit is being replaced. To accomplish this, CalCCA requests the following amendment:

Section 4. Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 shall be amended as follows:
(c) Commencing June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, the commission shall reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a new residential unit and filed by the governing body of a city or county, unless one of the following conditions is met:
2) Clarify that the state and local governments can adopt the 2025 State Building Code: We understand the authors’ intent that the state continue with the adoption process for the 2025 State Building Code, with a pause until the 2031 Code is approved, and that local governments are allowed to adopt the 2025 State Building Code.

The Commission should be allowed to work on the 2031 state building codes before June 1, 2031, in order to proceed with the normal code adoption process for the 2031 code. To accomplish this, CalCCA requests the following amendment:

Section 6. Health and Safety Code Section 18930 shall be amended as follows:
(g) Commencing June 1, 2025, after the adoption of the 2025 State Building Code, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, proposed building standards beyond the state 2025 code affecting new residential units shall not be considered, approved, or adopted by the commission or any other adopting agency, unless either one of the following conditions is met:

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 2394 Attachment: AB 306, CalCCA Oppose Unless Amended, 04 28 25 (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) (1) The commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. (2) The building standards relate to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by the Office of the State Fire Marshal.
(3) The building standards under consideration would not take effect until Jan 1, 2032.

For these reasons, we must respectfully oppose unless amended AB 306 at this time. We thank the authors for their work and the ongoing dialogue with our members, and look forward to continuing to work on the bill. If you have any questions, please contact Sean MacNeil ([email protected] or 530-400-2496), Director of Legislative Affairs.

Sincerely,
Beth Vaughan
Chief Executive Officer, CalCCA

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 2395 Attachment: AB 306, CalCCA Oppose Unless Amended, 04 28 25 (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 1 ends

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

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

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

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 2396 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Floor Analysis (5) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

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

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

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 2397 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Floor Analysis (5) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 2398 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Floor Analysis (5) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 2399 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Floor Analysis (5) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 2400 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Floor Analysis (5) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

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

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 2401 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Floor Analysis (5) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 7 ends

FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

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

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

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

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

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 2402 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Floor Analysis (5) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 8 ends

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon

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

16.D.c
Packet Pg. 2403 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Floor Analysis (5) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 1 ends

Date of Hearing: March 12, 2025

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

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2404 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 2 ends

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2405 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 3 ends

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

COMMENTS:

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

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2406 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 4 ends

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

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2407 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2408 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2409 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 7 ends

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

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2410 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 8 ends

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

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

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2411 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 9 ends

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

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

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2412 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 10 ends

Related Legislation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2413 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 11 ends

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

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2414 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 12 ends

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

16.D.d
Packet Pg. 2415 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Housing And Community Development (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 1 ends

Date of Hearing: March 19, 2025

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

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

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

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 2416 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Appropriations (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 2 ends

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

FISCAL EFFECT:

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

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

COMMENTS:

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 2417 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Appropriations (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 2418 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Appropriations (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) AB 306

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

16.D.e
Packet Pg. 2419 Attachment: 202520260AB306_Assembly Appropriations (1) (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB 306) Measure:

Lead Authors:

Principal Coauthors:

Coauthors:

Topic:
31st Day in Print:

Title:

House Location:

Last Amended Date:

Voting Committee Location:

Committee Action Date:

Committee Motion:

Committee Vote Result:

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

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

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

16.D.f
Packet Pg. 2420 Attachment: 20250417-Bill Status - AB-306 Building regulations_ state building standards_ (7070 : Negrete: Oppose Unless Amended on AB City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmembers Hall, Zwick, and Mayor Negrete that the City Council direct the Interim City Manager to work with the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, and the Santa Monica Pier Lessees Association to bring back large music events and multi-day festivals to the Santa Monica Pier as part of our strategy to pursue economic opportunity and growth.

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

A. 20250513 16 Item - Bringing Music Festivals to the Santa Monica Pier - Hall Zwick Negrete
B. Written Comments

16.E
Packet Pg. 2421
Meeting: May 13, 2025
1 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS DAN HALL, JESSE ZWICK, AND MAYOR LANA 2 NEGRETE
3 Request of Councilmembers Hall, Zwick, and Mayor Negrete that the City Council 4 direct the Interim City Manager to work with the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, 5 Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, and the Santa Monica Pier Lessees Association 6 to bring back large music events and multi-day festivals to the Santa Monica Pier 7 as part of our strategy to pursue economic opportunity and growth. 8 International travelers have long been a mainstay of Santa Monica’s tourism 9 industry. They tend to spend more money in our hotels and restaurants, stay for multiple 10 days to visit our beaches, and typically walk or use public transit to get around. However, 11 with the Trump Administration’s new tariff regimes and visa restrictions, everyday 12 international tourism - outside of projections for mega-events like the FIFA World Cup 13 and the LA28 Olympics - has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Pivoting towards 14 regional and domestic tourism can help plug the gap in the meantime, and as several 15 cities from Long Beach to West Hollywood have shown, music and the arts – specifically 16 music festivals – are a key attraction for high-spending domestic tourists. 17 Outdoor music festivals in particular are powerful economic drivers for a city. Santa 18 Monica’s Pier and the adjacent Lot 1 North (a.k.a. “1550 lot”) present an ideal venue for 19 a multi-day festival, and evidence from similar waterside events in Los Angeles County 20 and San Francisco suggests significant potential benefits. Festivals draw visitors who 21 spend money locally, support jobs, and enhance a city’s profile. At the same time, Santa 22 Monica’s experience with the former Twilight Concert Series highlights the importance of 23 managing crowds and safety prudently and proactively. 24 Festivals attract thousands of attendees, many from outside of the host city, who 25 spend on hotels, dining, shopping, and transportation. Festival crowds can greatly benefit 26 nearby businesses such as restaurants, retail shops, transportation services, and hotels, 27 which, in turn, generate employment for event staff, security, vendors, and hospitality 28 service workers. Beyond immediate spend, festivals can raise a city’s profile as a vibrant 29 cultural destination and enhance visibility which translates into sustained tourism growth. 30 Insomniac’s Dreamstate festival is a major trance music event that draws tens of 31 thousands of attendees to Long Beach’s Queen Mary waterfront every year; Dreamstate 32 2023 hosted 25,000 attendees. While precise revenue figures are not publicly released, 33 high attendance at ticket prices of $300-400 suggest multi-million dollars in gross 34 revenues. During Dreamstate weekends (typically held in November), many downtown 35 and waterfront hotels report sell-outs or near-full capacity, including the Queen Mary hotel 36 itself (which is adjacent to the festival site). The Transient Occupancy Tax collected by

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 2422 Attachment: 20250513 16 Item - Bringing Music Festivals to the Santa Monica Pier - Hall Zwick Negrete (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS HALL, ZWICK, AND MAYOR NEGRETE Bringing Music Festivals to the Santa Monica Pier

Page 2 of 5 ends

Long Beach hit $38.2 million in 2023, a record-high figure driven by overnight visitors.1 37 38 City officials have noted that Long Beach is becoming a year-round music and 39 entertainment destination, which keeps hotel occupancy strong even in the fall months 40 when beach weather is cooler. Festival attendees often extend their stay for additional 41 nights, contributing to travel spend on hotels and restaurants. An analysis of economic 42 activity around the Queen Mary found that in 2019, events at the site generated $93.7 43 million of spending in Long Beach, with $3.3 million in tax revenue (not inclusive of permit fees and security reimbursements). 44 2 Notably, 97% of all expenditures associated with the area vicinity the Queen Mary came from event attendees and hotel guests,3 45 underscoring 46 how festivals fuel spending on food, beverages, souvenirs, merchandise, ride-shares, and 47 other services.
48 Portola music festival in San Francisco debuted in 2022 with 30,000 attendees. 49 While a majority of attendees are local Bay Area residents (organizers noted ~90% were 50 from within 50 miles), influx of out-of-town visitors in 2022-2024 boosted hotel occupancy on festival nights.4 51 For example, during 2023, about 250 hotel rooms in San Francisco 52 were booked by festival-goers at peak nights, generating roughly $300,000 in hotel revenue and $3.3 million in local spend. 53 5 About half of the food and beverage vendors on-site were local Bay Area businesses, including popular local eateries.6 54 The festival 55 employed around 1,400 union stagehands (IATSE Local 16) during the site build-out and show days, with $1.4 million paid to union workers.7 56 57 Smaller, mid-sized festivals report similar economic benefits. The Treasure Island 58 Music Festival in San Francisco, a two-day festival which ran from 2007-2018, drew around 10,000-18,000 attendees per year. 59 8 Despite this modest size, the festival generated approximately $10-15 million in economic impact annually for the city. 60 9 West 61 Hollywood’s OUTLOUD Music Festival, generated multi-millions in gross revenues with 62 approximately 50,310 attendees in 2024 spread across three days (including 8,500 attendees for one free day ticketed by lottery on Friday). 63 10 Notably, the festival is 64 financially self-sustaining - covering all its production costs (talent, staging, etc.) without city subsidy. 65 11 Producer JJLA/OUTLOUD reimburses the City of West Hollywood $90,000 1 Visit Long Beach "Visitor Spending Generates Nearly $2 Billion in Economic Impact for Long Beach" 2 Long Beach Post News "Report: Queen Mary generated more than $93 million for local economy in 2019"
3 Ibid.
4 San Francisco Maritime Commerce Advisory Committee Goldenvoice Report "Portola Music Festival" 5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 San Francisco Business Times "How an old naval base turned into a $15 million music festival" 9 Ibid.
10 West Hollywood City Council JJLA Producers Report Pride 2024 11 WeHo Online "JJLA Contract for OUTLOUD Music Festival Extended Through 2030"

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 2423 Attachment: 20250513 16 Item - Bringing Music Festivals to the Santa Monica Pier - Hall Zwick Negrete (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS HALL, ZWICK, AND MAYOR NEGRETE Bringing Music Festivals to the Santa Monica Pier

Page 3 of 5 ends

66 each year for public safety expenses related to the event, and posts a $25,000 security deposit for park protection.12 67 This arrangement means the city incurs minimal direct cost 68 from the festival while benefiting from the spillover economic activity. 69 Santa Monica stands to gain similar economic benefits by hosting its own outdoor 70 music festivals at the Pier, and did for over thirty years. The Twilight Concert series was 71 a free concert series on the Pier, which ran for over three decades and regularly drew 72 crowds of 10,000+ attendees. These concerts proved a boon for nearby businesses - 73 contemporary opinion pieces in the Santa Monica Daily Press shared restaurants along 74 Ocean Avenue and the Downtown area reported full houses on Twilight concert nights as attendees dined and shopped locally.13 75
76 However, the Twilight Concert Series also highlighted significant challenges for 77 free, non-ticketed events. By 2016-2017, the event’s popularity outgrew what an open, 78 free-admission format could safely handle. Crowds swelled to unprecedented sizes 79 (estimates of 25,000-50,000 people spilling onto the beach for a single show on one night), straining security and infrastructure.14 80 Former Police Chief Jacqueline Seabrooks 81 warned that such crowds had “gone way beyond the capabilities” of the police and emergency services. 82 15 She labeled the 2017 opening night show “irresponsible” for attracting a crowd beyond what local authorities could control. 83 16 Public safety concerns 84 ultimately led the City to discontinue Twilight after 2017. 85 The Twilight Concert Series offers two key lessons for Santa Monica. First, the 86 demand for outdoor music events at the Pier is clearly there - tens of thousands of people 87 are attracted to attend, indicating festivals and mid-scale events can thrive and bring 88 substantial economic activity. Second, proper event management and scaling are critical 89 - festivals cannot grow to that size without proper mitigation for security and for the Pier 90 lessees, which suffered when safety infrastructure blocked entrances and forced their 91 closures during the concerts. Any future events of this magnitude centered on the Pier 92 should consider crowd and noise control, ticketing and capacity limits, ample safety and 93 security protocols, and infrastructure and programming to handle large audiences, while 94 not limiting access to Pier businesses for ticketed attendees. A return of large-scale music 95 events to the Pier will be an economic boon if done correctly and safely. A balance must 96 be struck between ‘shoulder season’ (October - May) ticketed events, which would 12 Ibid.
13 Santa Monica Daily Press Op-Ed "Success of Twilight Concert Series is a blessing and a curse" 14 Patch Online "Khalid Twilight Concert's Massive Crowd Raises Safety Concerns" 15 LAist "60,000 People Showed Up To A Free Concert At The Santa Monica Pier, Raising Safety Concerns For The Rest Of The Series"
16 Santa Monica Daily Press "Police Chief calls TCS opener 'irresponsible'"

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 2424 Attachment: 20250513 16 Item - Bringing Music Festivals to the Santa Monica Pier - Hall Zwick Negrete (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS HALL, ZWICK, AND MAYOR NEGRETE Bringing Music Festivals to the Santa Monica Pier

Page 4 of 5 ends

97 infrequently close down public access to the Pier to generate revenue and culture, with 98 free and open access to an iconic Southern California destination. 99 In order to promote our city and the Pier as a world class entertainment venue, promote 100 the budget priority of “economic opportunity and growth,” and bring fun, large-scale music 101 events back to Santa Monica,
102 WE THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL:
103 1. Direct the Interim City Manager to return to Council no later than end of year with:
104 1.1. A zoning ordinance implementing an event-based Pier and Beach 105 Entertainment Zone pursuant to SB969 (Wiener, 2024), which:
106 1.1.1. Authorizes the City’s Community Development and/or Recreation 107 and Arts Departments to develop and lead the management of an 108 entertainment zone for major events at the Pier and also Lot 1 North 109 (a.k.a. “1550 lot”) and the immediate beach areas extending from 110 Lifeguard Tower #14 (to the north of the Pier) to the South Beach (to 111 include an area no smaller than to Lifeguard Tower #17 to the south 112 of the Pier).
113 1.1.2. Additionally authorizes the Santa Monica Pier Corporation to use this 114 entertainment zone for their beach and Pier activations. 115 1.1.3. Updates the City of Santa Monica Administrative Instruction specific 116 to Events and Event Site Guidelines to make the City’s public spaces 117 more attractive to large-scale events, including an increase to the 118 current attendance cap for outside-produced concert events on the 119 Pier Parking Deck from the current cap of 500 persons. 120 1.2. A development plan seeking public-private partnerships and sponsorship 121 opportunities, particularly with local businesses, to invest in capital 122 infrastructure projects such as sound, lighting, and performance amenities 123 on the Pier.
124 1.3. A cleanliness, security, and safety plan which:
125 1.3.1. Builds upon the Direct Action Response Team (DART) model of joint 126 staffing and operations.
127 1.3.2. Allows for a closed security perimeter accessible to ticket holders 128 which encompasses the entirety of the proposed Pier and Beaches 129 Entertainment Zone (with flexibility to shrink or grow in size within the 130 zone footprint to fit the event).
131 1.3.3. Authorizes use of private security staff and metal detectors for 132 entrance points to the security perimeter.
133 1.3.4. Prioritizes weapons enforcement to protect against violence and 134 terrorism for attendees.

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 2425 Attachment: 20250513 16 Item - Bringing Music Festivals to the Santa Monica Pier - Hall Zwick Negrete (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS HALL, ZWICK, AND MAYOR NEGRETE Bringing Music Festivals to the Santa Monica Pier

Page 5 of 5 ends

135 1.3.5. Sets expectations for event producers for full cost reimbursement 136 from gross revenues.
137 1.4. A marketing plan which leverages Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, 138 Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., and Main Street Business Improvement 139 District expertise to facilitate hotel, restaurant, parking, and travel package 140 deals with event producers.
141 1.5. An operations and logistics plan which:
142 1.5.1. Is designed in partnership with the Santa Monica Pier lessees, the 143 Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., and 144 the Main Street Business Improvement District.
145 1.5.2. Explores buy-outs of Pacific Park for the duration of events that close 146 non-ticketed, public access to the Pier and potential for rent relief 147 options for certain Pier lessees as baked-in to rental costs. 148 1.5.3. Ensures restaurants and retail on the Pier remain open as vendors 149 for events with full access for ticketed participants. 150 1.5.4. Encourages other local area vendors to offer food and beverage 151 menus that are complementary to the existing lessees (e.g. snacks 152 as opposed to full meals) that are appropriately located in the South 153 Beach or 1550 Lot to provide spacing for the restaurant lessees. 154 1.5.5. Ensures continual access to the beach path during event build out, 155 execution, and tear down by using temporary bridges to connect the 156 1550 lot with the Pier north steps and path by Bubba Gump as well 157 as connecting the south beach areas across the bike path. 158 1.5.6. Explores parking package opportunities in downtown parking 159 garages and the South Beach lots, and subsequent logistics of foot 160 traffic and shuttles to Pier events, especially during the Pier Bridge 161 Replacement Project.
162 1.6. A programming framework to ensure event planners target the ‘shoulder 163 season’ of October-May (save Spring Break weeks), as well as book 164 appropriately sized acts across multiple stage areas with intentional 165 scheduling overlap to control for crowd flow and density using a crowd166 splitting strategy. 167 1.7. A reasonable (but not prohibitive) good-neighbor framework to mitigate 168 nuisance to residents and businesses along Pacific Coast Highway, Ocean 169 Front Walk, and Appian Way.
170 2. Direct the City Attorney to bring any appropriate and necessary amendments to 171 City ordinances to comply with the above direction. 172
173 # # #

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 2426 Attachment: 20250513 16 Item - Bringing Music Festivals to the Santa Monica Pier - Hall Zwick Negrete (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day 1 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:07 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Items 10.A and 16.E

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am writing to join Santa Monica Forward in supporting adoption of item 10.A bringing a permanent entertainment zone on the Promenade, and item 16.E, on the creation of an additional entertainment zone at the Pier as part of bringing back large-scale concerts at the Pier. Thank you for your work on these items and to Councilmembers Hall and Zwick and Mayor Negrete for bringing forward item 16.E.

Thank you,
Jason
90403
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2427 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 2 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:04 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Items 10.A and 16.E

Thank you,
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2428 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jesus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:54 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Items 10.A and 16.E

Thank you,
Jesus, 90405
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2429 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 2 David Yakobson
From: John Lin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:11 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Items 10.A and 16.E

Thank you,
90401
John Lin
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2430 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 3 David Yakobson
From: Kyle Rebar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:45 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Items 10.A and 16.E

Thank you,
Kyle Rebar
90405
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2431 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jim Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 4:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Misti Kerns; Carter Rubin; Nicholas Rolston; Julieta Giner; David Newberg; Peter Trinh; Randi Parent
Subject: Regarding May 13, 2025 City Council Agenda Itam 16.E., from Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors
Attachments: Santa Monica Pier Corporation Resolution Re Economic Recovery (1).pdf Dear Santa Monica City Council Members;
On behalf of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors, I am resending to you a Resolution that the Board passed at their April 28, 2025 Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board Meeting, much of which is relevant to City Council Agenda Item 16.E. at the May 13, 2025 Council Meeting.

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

Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2432 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 200 Santa Monica Pier, Suite A, Santa Monica, CA 90401

A RESOLUTION OF THE SANTA MONICA PIER CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

REGARDING EFFORTS TO SUPPORT ECONOMIC RECOVERY IN THE SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY.

The Board of Directors of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation (SMPC) resolves as follows:

WHEREAS the SMPC can help the City of Santa Monica (the City) support economic opportunity and growth through increasing local visitors and tourists, and; WHEREAS SMPC and the City benefit from increasing local visitors and tourism activity at the Pier through events, rentals and retail activity that contributes to the City’s Pier Fund and the SMPC’s revenue, and;
WHEREAS the Pier draws approximately 10 million visitors per year and supports a local economic impact of a $714.2 million in Santa Monica, generating nearly $20 million per year in tax revenue for local government operations in Santa Monica according to a 2019 Beacon Economics study, and;
WHEREAS the demolition and replacement of the Pier Bridge will create additional short-term challenges that require creative solutions in order to sustain high levels of visitation to the Pier, and;
WHEREAS SMPC convenes monthly public meetings attended by Pier stakeholders, including tenants, permitted vendors and performers, visitors and other members of the public to receive public input and convene conversations about the needs and priorities of the Pier community, and;
WHEREAS SMPC agrees to assist the City with public review and discussion of planning and policy matters related to the Pier objectives,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the SMPC expresses its support for the following and its desire to work with the City of Santa Monica on the following:
● Creating a Pier/Beach Zone in which the Pier Corporation leads the management of events and event prospects not only on the Pier (as is currently its responsibility), but also to the beach areas immediately next to the Pier extending between Lifeguard Towers #14 (to the north of the Pier) and #17 (to the south of the Pier) ● Updating the City of Santa Monica Administrative Instruction specific to Events and the Event Site Guidelines to make the City’s public spaces more attractive to large-scale events, including an increase to the current attendance cap for outside-produced concert events on the Pier Parking Deck from the current cap of 500 persons, thereby increasing interest in the Pier as a unique concert venue.

Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2433 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 200 Santa Monica Pier, Suite A, Santa Monica, CA 90401
● Working closely with City public safety departments in advance of events to outline security and safety needs and requirements, so that the Pier Corporation can provide as much cost certainty as possible to event partners in order for the Pier to maintain a competitive edge as a venue.
● Designating the Santa Monica Pier as an Entertainment Zone, pursuant to SB 969 (Wiener, 2024), with the geographic extent, hours of operation and other parameters to be determined in consultation with Pier tenants, stakeholders and the City. ● Seeking ideas from Community Partners to fully utilize the allowed development envelope on the Pier up to the cap established by Proposition S. ● Seeking ideas from Community Partners to invest in capital infrastructure projects such as sound, lighting and performance amenities.
● Continuing “clean and safe” investments, including the City’s DART team, to ensure that visitors and tenants can operate in a healthy and safe manner. ● Doing all of the above with consistent input and consultation from Pier stakeholders.

AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the SMPC directs the Executive Director to take necessary steps to undertake these actions.

Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2434 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 1 David Yakobson
From: Carter Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:59 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Items 10.A and 16.E

Thank you,
Carter Rubin
Pico Neighborhood Resident
Best,
Carter
310-200-1088
(Sent while mobile)
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2435 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 2 David Yakobson
From: Ryan Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:08 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Items 10.A and 16.E

EXTERNAL
I am writing to join Santa Monica Forward in supporting adoption of item 10.A bringing a permanent entertainment zone on the Promenade, and item 16.E, on the creation of an additional entertainment zone at the Pier as part of bringing back large-scale concerts at the Pier. Thank you for your work on these items and to Councilmembers Hall and Zwick and Mayor Negrete for bringing forward item 16.E.

Thank you, Ryan Olson, 90405
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2436 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 3 David Yakobson
From: Naveen Hovemann <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:09 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Items 10.A and 16.E

Thank you,
Naveen Hovemann
90401
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2437 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 1 David Yakobson
From: Chasen Daniels <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:21 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Items 10.A and 16.E

Thank you,
Chasen Daniels
90401
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2438 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 1 David Yakobson
From: Tracey Alexander <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:07 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Items 10.A and 16.E

EXTERNAL
Hello Councilmembers,
I am writing to join Santa Monica Forward in supporting adoption of item 10.A bringing a permanent entertainment zone on the Promenade, and item 16.E, on the creation of an additional entertainment zone at the Pier as part of bringing back large-scale concerts at the Pier. Thank you for your dedicated work on these items and to Councilmembers Hall and Zwick and Mayor Negrete for bringing forward item 16.E.

Thank you,
Tracey Alexander
90272
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2439 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 1 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 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

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.

Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2440 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 2 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 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.

Item 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2441 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) 3 Thank you,
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 16-E
May 13, 2025
Item 16-E
May 13, 2025

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 2442 Attachment: Written Comments (7079 : Hall/Zwick/Negrete: Multi-Day Music Events Festivals at SMPier) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmember Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Mayor Negrete that the City Council allocate $1,000 of Council Discretionary Funds to the Santa Monica Animal Shelter Foundation to help defray costs related to their Open House Fundraiser on June 7, 2025. Funds will cover certain event costs such as, but not limited to, a DJ, supplies, and other items needed to make the event a success so that more of the donations received can go to assisting animals in need.

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

A. Council Discretionary Funds_20250513

16.F
Packet Pg. 2443
Council Discretionary Funds
As of 05/13/25
FY 2023-24 - Status of Unspent Funds
Description Amount Notes
Unspent, committed funds from prior year $ 8,578.66 programmed but not spent yet Santa Monica Pony League to repair scoreboard at Los Amigos Park $ (5,000.00) Support City's public libraries (2,986.19)
Total FY 2023-24 unspent, uncommitted funds $ 592.47 Not needed for hosting Sister City Mazatlan FY 2024-25 - New Appropriation and allocations
Description Amount Programmed Date
FY 2024-25 - New Appropriation 127,653.00 Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Ocean Park Association for Annual 4th of July Parade (15,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Business Improvement District (BID) Annual Support (29,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Pico Youth and Family Center (PYFC) Car Show (6,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Westside Coalition for Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration (9,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Santa Monica High School Grad Nite (20,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Provide funds to assist in covering Samohi Latino Graduation event expenses (6,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Provide funds to cover costs of the Memorial Day event (5,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2024-25, 6/25/24 Sponsor Pride activities throughout the City (10,000.00) Council Meeting, 3/11/25, item 16F Sponsor programming for Roll @ Santa Monica (2,500.00) Council Meeting, 9/24/24, item 16C Sponsor scholarships and cultural programming for Samohi group Legado Latino
Council Meeting, 10/22/24, item 16A (5,000.00)
Support Samohi Wind Ensemble's 2025 performance tour in the United Kingdom
Council Meeting, 11/11/24, item 16D (10,000.00)
Total Programmed $ 117,500.00
Unprogrammed Balance Available $ 10,745.47
5/6/2025

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 2444 Attachment: Council Discretionary Funds_20250513 (7080 : Zernit/Torosis/Negrete: Council Discretionary City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.G
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmember Hall that the City Council direct the Interim City Manager to work with the Police Chief, Human Resources Director, and recruiting team to establish a Department of Defense Skillbridge program for the purpose of opening a new recruitment pipeline for vacant roles. Utilize learnings and best practices from similar programs established by: Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles Airport Police, Salinas Police Department, and San Diego Police Department. To the extent possible, prioritize efforts with local-to-Southern California bases such as Los Angeles Air Force Base and Camp Pendleton to initiate recruitment efforts.

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

A. 20250513 16 Item - Establishing a DoD Skillbridge Program for SMPD - Hall

16.G
Packet Pg. 2445
Meeting: May 13, 2025
1 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBER DAN HALL
2 Request of Councilmember Hall that the City Council direct the Interim City 3 Manager to establish a Department of Defense Skillbridge service member 4 internship program within the Santa Monica Police Department for the purpose of 5 opening a new recruitment pipeline for vacant roles.
6 The Department of Defense (DoD) SkillBridge program helps service members 7 transition to civilian careers by allowing them to intern with civilian employers during their 8 final 180 days of active duty. The service member remains on active duty and continues 9 to receive military pay and benefits, meaning the host employer incurs no salary cost. 10 SkillBridge internships are not subject to federal wage-hour laws or create additional 11 contracting obligations for employers. Veterans bring discipline, teamwork, and problem12 solving experience from their military service to municipal public safety. 13 For the City of Santa Monica, SkillBridge could establish a new recruitment pipeline 14 to the Santa Monica Police Department’s (SMPD) non-sworn and sworn workforce. 15 SMPD could partner with SkillBridge to draw on the leadership and technical skills of 16 separating military officers and non-commissioned officers. This would also allow the 17 Department to test candidates for performance before extending offers of employment. It 18 is also possible for the Department to use this internship period to assess candidates for 19 sponsorship to an Academy and transition to a sworn officer position. 20 Southern California’s military installations provide a rich local talent pool. Los 21 Angeles Air Force Base (El Segundo) is home to thousands of Airmen and Guardians 22 and is headquarters to one of three Space Force Commands, the Space Systems 23 Command. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (San Diego County) trains and houses 24 over 40,000 marines and sailors. As of May 2, 2025, SMPD is funded for 232 sworn officer 25 headcount, with 222 positions filled. Several vacancies have persisted for years, despite 26 best efforts made by our Department’s recruiting team. By leveraging SkillBridge with 27 these nearby bases, SMPD could tap into a previously untapped pool of qualified veterans 28 and transitioning service members for its vacant positions. 29 In order to establish a new recruitment pipeline for the Santa Monica Police Department, 30 promote our city as a veteran-friendly employer, and further our commitment to our 2025- 31 2027 Budget Priority of “clean streets and safe neighborhoods,” 32 I THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL:
33 1. Direct the Interim City Manager to work with the Police Chief, Human Resources 34 Director, and recruiting team to establish a DoD Skillbridge program. 35 2. Utilize learnings and best practices from similar programs established by:
36 2.1. Los Angeles Police Department.

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 2446 Attachment: 20250513 16 Item - Establishing a DoD Skillbridge Program for SMPD - Hall (7081 : Hall: Establish a Skillbridge Program) 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL
Establishing a DoD Skillbridge Internship Program with SMPD

Page 2 of 2 ends

37 2.2. Los Angeles Airport Police.
38 2.3. Salinas Police Department.
39 2.4. San Diego Police Department.
40 3. To the extent possible, prioritize efforts with local-to-Southern California bases 41 such as Los Angeles Air Force Base and Camp Pendleton to initiate recruitment 42 efforts.
43 44 # # #

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 2447 Attachment: 20250513 16 Item - Establishing a DoD Skillbridge Program for SMPD - Hall (7081 : Hall: Establish a Skillbridge Program)

Santa Monica City CouncilMay 13, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
May 13, 2025