Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, October 14, 2025 (part 5 of 8)

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 25 Ellyn Lerner
25 Village Parkway
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 26 Mitchell Kois
From: Ilya Haykinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 10:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - SUPPORT Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to support the upzoning of 2644 30th street to Neighborhood Commercial. The property is adjacent to a commercial area, and would be a wonderful location to welcome in new neighbors — the 10-year deed restriction would likely encourage the developer of this property to create housing, rather than a purely commercial-use building. We need to continue to grow, as a city, and this property is already a commercial building.

-ilya haykinson
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 27 Mitchell Kois
From: Todd Sherman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Todd Sherman
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.

The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
 City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.  The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
 City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 28 portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spotzoning.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Todd Sherman
Todd Sherman
2800 28th Street, Suite 130
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310.780.5565 mobile
310.664.6705 ext. 101
310.664.6706 (fax)
[email protected]
www.FirstPacific1.com
DRE #00925920
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and/or any attachment(s) is confidential and intended for the use only by the recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, reproduce, or distribute the contents of this message. If this e-mail is received in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 29 Mitchell Kois
From: Karrie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.

Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 30 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Karrie Dvorchak
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 31 Mitchell Kois
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 32 Sincerely,
Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 33 Mitchell Kois
From: Laura Thixton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the lowrise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. Sincerely, [Your Name] Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 34 Mitchell Kois
From: ErikLerner RealEstateArchitect.com <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Spot zoning is not the right way to plan the future of Santa Monica. Careful comprehensive planning balancing neighborhood character, environmental quality, social goals and economic realƟes is required.

I concur with the senƟments expressed below.

I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.

The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 35 residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Erik Lerner
25 Village Pkwy
Santa Monica CA 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 36 Mitchell Kois
From: Carolyn Hanlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 37 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
[Carolyn Hanlin]
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 38 Mitchell Kois
From: ALICE ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 39 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Alice Ellis, 90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 40 Mitchell Kois
From: Lynne Schlosstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 41 Sincerely,
Lynne Schlosstein
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 42 Mitchell Kois
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 43 Sincerely,
Jordan Ellis
Sunset Park resident
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 44 Mitchell Kois
From: Dave Childs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 45 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
David Childs
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1202 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 46 Mitchell Kois
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1203 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 47 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Respectfully,
Dalila Fuentes
Sunset Park Resident 30+yrs
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1204 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 48 Mitchell Kois
From: Adam Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1205 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 49 Sincerely,
Adam Cohen
Santa Monica home owner
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1206 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 50 Mitchell Kois
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1207 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 51 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Janet Tunick
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1208 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 52 Mitchell Kois
From: Brian Lanich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1209 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 53 Sincerely,
Brian Lanich
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1210 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 54 Mitchell Kois
From: John Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the lowrise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. Sincerely, John Reynolds Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1211 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 55 Mitchell Kois
From: Peter Mezza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 5:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1212 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 56 Sincerely,
Peter Mezza
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1213 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 57 Mitchell Kois
From: pierre-yves delaunay <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 5:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1214 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 58 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Pierre-Yves Delaunay
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1215 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 59 Mitchell Kois
From: Jackie Lawson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 5:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1216 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 60 Sincerely,
Jacquelyn Lawson
2421 22nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1217 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 61 Mitchell Kois
From: Shane Murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1218 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 62 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Shane Murphy
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1219 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 63 Mitchell Kois
From: Norma Maister <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1220 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 64 Sincerely,
Norma Maister
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1221 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 65 Mitchell Kois
From: Aram Kadish <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the lowrise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. Sincerely, Aram Kadish Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1222 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 66 Mitchell Kois
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 2:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1223 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 67 Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1224 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 68 Mitchell Kois
From: Jerry <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 11:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1225 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 69 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Jerry Nodiff
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1226 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 70 Mitchell Kois
From: Danielle Borgia <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
This seeming need for housing density is not able to be achieved in a way that is actually equitable because of the high costs of building. The current overdevelopment has not helped our homeless problem. It has not made rent more affordable for our seniors and people who work here. The few “affordable” units are a drop in the bucket compared to the need. Meanwhile the “market value” apartments already built in the newer high rises sit empty. We need to work on building the city back up for tourism, not trying to get by on taxes from overdevelopment that our water infrastructure cannot support and cars that have no parking.

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1227 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 71 use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.

Sincerely,
Danielle Borgia
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1228 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 72 Mitchell Kois
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the lowrise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. Sincerely, Ben Wang Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1229 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 73 Mitchell Kois
From: Famili, Anita <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1230 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 74 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Anita Famili
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1231 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 75 Mitchell Kois
From: cathykarolc <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. Sincerely, Cathy Karol-Crowther Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1232 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 76 Mitchell Kois
From: Larry Birstock <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1233 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 77 Sincerely,
Larry Birstock
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1234 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 78 Mitchell Kois
From: Kevin McCarthy <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1235 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 79 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Kevin McCarthy
1206 Grant st
SM 90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1236 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 80 Mitchell Kois
From: Sergio Penaloza <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1237 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 81 Sincerely,
Sergio Peñaloza
Sent from my iPhone on the run!
Please forgive any typos or the brevity of the message. Thank you! Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1238 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 82 Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is appropriately zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses.

A 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is not an acceptable consolation to neighbors because it’s merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity that our General Plan limits to the boulevards in order to protect residential neighborhoods.

Fatal procedural flaws with this spot upzoing include:
 City Staff continue to mislead and misinform residents and Council that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 Land Use general plan (LUCE) but this is false. The LUCE was a lengthy and purposeful process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from creeping commercial activity which was limited to the boulevards.
 The City Staff and City Attorney have been helping the property owner upzone this parcel for over a year without disclosing this relationship to the public. We, the residents and taxpayers, pay City Staff and Council salaries, but they are working directly with the business owner and its lobbying firm against the residents of our city.  City Staff allowed the owner to skip the application process for a zoning change, and avoid paying $34K in application fees at a time when the City has declared its fiscal distress.

The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Expanding that “district boundary” to even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a peninsula of commercial use in a residential neighborhood in violation of our General Plan and is spot-zoning.

Rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create unacceptable density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain our city cannot afford. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the City that the City cannot afford.

Crucially, it also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout residential neighborhoods.

Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will anger residents and erode trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Reject this illegitimate attempt to rewrite Santa Monica's General Plan.

Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only residential development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1239 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 83 90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1240 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Morse <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 10:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot.

It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue.

The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain.

Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning.

Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1241 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 2 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Nancy Morse
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1242 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 3 Mitchell Kois
From: Craig A Horowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1243 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 4 Sincerely,
Craig Horowitz
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1244 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 5 Mitchell Kois
From: Susanne Jacobson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1245 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 6 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Susanne Jacobson
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1246 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 7 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Maddalosso <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1247 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 8 Sincerely,
Alex
Alex Maddalosso
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1248 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 9 Mitchell Kois
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

I respecƞully urge you to reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street. 10 years doesn’t seem like long enough to protect the surrounding neighborhood from the ramificaƟons of the upzoning of this parcel, especially when the upzoning sƟll seems to be taking place unnecessarily.

The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from what we know will likely become an 85’ tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood surround it. For it to be a meaningful deed restricƟon it would need to be longer - like on the order of 50 years or more.

I also would ask that you revisit the decision of last council meeƟng and oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, enƟrely, and also instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

There seems to be no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning, given that there were alternaƟves to help the owner with his (sƟll theoreƟcal) leasing challenge. Proceeding with such limited jusƟficaƟon sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods.

Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

I also conƟnue to be concerned for the city that Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.

And finally - I strongly urge you to use all powers the city has to bring Neighborhood Commercial back down to 32’ so that we don’t have 7 story buildings lining our smaller streets like Ocean Park, Pico, Montana and Main. This issue is inƟmately related to the resistance we are seeing around the upzoning of this parcel, and we would be wise to push for this as soon as possible. We would gain a lot of good will from neighbors if we could do this in a way that prevents 7 story buildings on NC. Now that the state has passed even more laws that upzone various parts of our city beyond what we planned for, we should be able to ask and execute on tailoring other parts of our planning to truly suit our city and make a livable Santa Monica.

Thank you so much,
Heather Thomason
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 10 Mitchell Kois
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 8:45 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Oliver Chi; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Heidi von Tongeln; Esther Hickman; Roni Crichton; Jennifer Polhemus; Nikki Kolhoff [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan Kolhoff; Dick Bernstein; Teri B.; Mindi Shank; Betty Mednick; Karen M. Fisher; Molly Subject: OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 11 D

EXTERNAL
Council agenda item 11 D on 10-14-25
OPPOSE THE COVENANT AND ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING OF 2644 30TH STREET
Mayor Negrete, Council, City Manager and City Attorney
I as a resident of 29th Street oppose the covenant that was secretly negotiated by Paula Larmore, her firm and the owner of 2644 30th Street. Our residents were told very clearly by Oliver Chi that we would have input and be able to be a part of the wording of the covenant. AGAIN MORE LIES. After pleading for 11 days to see the covenant that was allegedly already prepared prior to the last meeting, we finally saw the already negotiated covenant. Ms. Larmore ignored our please as did staff, the city attorney and Mr. Chi. Then as usual immediately prior to the holiday weekend it was emailed to us in its final form. We object to the covenant. We object to the rezoning.

We object to you overburdening our neighborhood with the 3205 32nd street project and this rezoning.

As Mr. Raskin is well aware this spot upzoning is illegal. The fact that you would favor one business/property owner over more than 100 single family property owners is egregious. The fact that you allow Mr. Zwicke to vote on anything is unethical. He has pushed through the ADU, zero lot line and parking lot ordinances which will help his employer and other developers. These were not emergency ordinances. There was no emergency and you know it.

It is disgusting that city employees’ salaries are paid for by the residents are working with a building owner to the detriment of the citizens of this city. You complain about $50,000 for neighborhood groups but you did not require Mr. Palmer to file an application for this illegal upzoning and pay the $34,000 fee. If he had filed an application this would have gone through the fire department among other departments to review ingress and egress. You are making it impossible for our neighborhood to Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1250 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 11 escape if there is a disaster or fire. The streets will no be able to handle the traffic. You are relegating us to run for our lives.

Additionally, this zoning is so stupid as it does not require the owner to provide parking. So an 85 foot tall building will add an additional 200-400 cars per day to our streets. We already cant park in our own neighborhood due to the people who work on Ocean Park needing parking.

All of this illegal upzoning has been done at the behest of Harding Larmore who has championed numerous projects that are ruining our town. We are a company town run by Harding Larmore. Who needs a city council. You are like MAGA cult members who kiss the ring of Harding Larmore. It is truly disturbing. What is worse, if you were to say if you don’t like it move. All of your dirty work would have to be disclosed. Mr Zwicke has cherry picked articles stating this density will lower our carbon footprint. We have no infra structure, second an additional 1000 people will use more water, more power, make more waste, use more plastic and burden the sewer system. The ingress and egress will make 29th and 30th less safe. The traffic will drive away potential diners and shoppers. We will look more and more like Westwood.

This demonstrates that you do not care about the ramifications. Anyone with half of a brain would see the negative environmental impact. Stop this nonsense and start working for the residents and protect our city. Stop giving our city over to overdevelopment. This action is illegal.

Tracey P. Hom Esq.
10850 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 825
Los Angeles, California 90024
310 749 5343
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1251 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 12 Mitchell Kois
From: Dan Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 8:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

This opens up the possibility of an 85-foot structure towering over the neighbors and truly changing the dynamic of Sunset Park. Would any of you want to have this potential structure next to your house? Craig Horowitz, my neighbor, who lives next to the lot would be directly impacted. Would you want that for yourself?

I want to emphasize that 2644 is NOT located on Ocean Park Boulevard. It has been a 2-story office building since the 1950s with a surface parking lot. Because of this and discussions had during the last LUCE process it is zoned R1 (residential). We understand the owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). That classification doesn't align with the how NC was designed.

The proposed 10-year restriction on development is merely putting a bush on a dumpsite and offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
1) City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. There were many special public meetings during the LUCE period that asked for public input that were not at City Hall. In fact, they were at community rooms where the public thought they were being heard. If residents can't trust that their voices are truly being heard at those meetings/events, and staff can go on the record to say there is no public record from hearings, then all the input received on Memorial Park and the SM Airport can be dismissed.
2) The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. Who do they work for? 3) City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. At a time where the City's finances are in trouble, why are we not following the process?
4) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1252 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 13 adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.

Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city which it cannot afford. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Sincerely,
Dan Kolhoff
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1253 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 14 Mitchell Kois
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 7:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public!
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain.

Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1254 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 15 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Wendy Dembo
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1255 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 16 Mitchell Kois
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 7:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1256 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 17 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Wilmont Chair
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1257 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 18 Mitchell Kois
From: Caitlin Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 7:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1258 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 19 Sincerely,
Caitlin
This message was sent from my phone, please excuse typos.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1259 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 20 Mitchell Kois
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 2:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain.

Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning.

Seven-story buildings among homes in R-1 neighborhoods? It would be a bad look! It is not Santa Monica now and it is not the way we residents want it to go.Please do not just go meekly along with the travesƟes resulƟng from the forcedItem 11-D October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1260 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 21 densificaƟon mandates coming out of Sacramento. Fight for our General Plan, which resulted from significant public parƟcipaƟon.

Mr. & Mrs. William J. Schoene
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1261 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 22 Mitchell Kois
From: Richard Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 11:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain.

Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1262 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 23 Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city.

It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Sincerely, Richard Bernstein, 2606 29th Street, Santa Monica Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1263 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 24 Mitchell Kois
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 10:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
This parcel is zoned R-1 for a reason. It is adjacent to homes and NOT located on a boulevard.

reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street,

oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial

instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Cathy Larson
Santa Monica resident
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1264 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 25 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 10:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1265 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 26 Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1266 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 27 Mitchell Kois
From: Leanna Einbinder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1267 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 28 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Leanna Einbinder
90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1268 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 29 Mitchell Kois
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:16 AM
To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

Sincerely,
Tina Cox
90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1269 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 30 Mitchell Kois
From: LINDA KNAB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Please realize how damaging rezoning this property to NC will be for the surrounding neighborhood. The only one that rezoniing will benefit are the developers. The council should put the wellbeing of the residents above the profits of big developers.

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1270 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 31 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Linda Reinbold
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 32 Mitchell Kois
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 33 Sincerely,
Paula Mazur
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 34 Mitchell Kois
From: Lois Bostwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1274 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 35 Sincerely,
Lois Bostwick
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1275 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 36 Mitchell Kois
From: P Wu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1276 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 37 erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Sincerely,
Patricia Bolster
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

Attachments: 2025-10-14 CC Comment (NHK re 2644 30th).pdf

EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete and City Council -
Please see my attached comment opposing the illegal spot-zoning of a fully leased, residentially zoned, 2-story office building at 2644 30th Street in a residential neighborhood in violation of our General Plan.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Project Neighbor
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 1 October 14, 2025
Re: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers –
This is an illegal spot-zoning of a fully leased, residentially zoned, 2-story oOice building at 2644 30th Street in a residential neighborhood. The proposed 10-year limitation on some development doesn’t protect our neighborhood. StaO (with the assistance of Harding Larmore) continues to mislead you with false claims about legal nonconforming uses, when the Code allows oOice use to continue in the entire building and the current oOice uses will still be nonconfoming in Neighborhood Commercial. StaO’s lies become the City Council’s lies if you approve the ordinance.

I urge you to:
a) reject the deed restriction limiting ONLY housing development and for ONLY 10 years, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct StaO to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment to restore the land use designation to residential.

A. THE COVENANT
The covenant is a 10-year reprieve from an 85’tower and that is unacceptable.

In the meantime, it ONLY restricts development of “Housing Projects.” It doesn’t restrict commercial development in a residential neighborhood.

It doesn’t restrict commercial activity in a residential neighborhood.

In short, it violates the LUCE. Again.

It doesn’t preserve the parking lot, if that is upzoned later.

It’s just a stay of execution for the neighbors for 10 years.

Furthermore, the city manager told the neighbors we would get to see the covenant before it was agreed. Instead, staO worked on the covenant with Harding Larmore and NOT the neighbors, emailing it to us late last Wednesday night stating this was it, signed it with the Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 2 owner last Thursday, and isn’t even presenting it tonight for your discussion or comment.

That is unacceptable.

We didn’t ask for this, it was negotiated without us, and it doesn’t work. It also is contrary to the claims made by the property manager, that there would be NO DEVELOPMENT, in several communications to the neighbors, and again at the City Council meeting. (See attached.)
The covenant wasn’t volunteered. The city manager told me he asked the owner for the covenant after he met with neighbors in the parking lot on September 17. Yet staO and the owner continue to claim it was volunteered, perhaps to imply some sort of good faith. Can staO be honest about anything? We really wonder.

You do not have to allow this betrayal of the residents by staO to continue. You can reject the covenant.

B. UPZONING
Even though this is second reading, you can oppose the upzoning.

1. Sta5 Misrepresented Legal Nonconforming Use Restrictions.

StaO is on the record, both written and verbally, characterizing the use limitations as more restrictive than they are. In the staO report, staO said the use couldn’t change from the current use and that any vacancy of any space for a year would prevent that use in that space. Both are false.
a. Categories of Use – It’s General OOice, not Production StaO inserted a chart in the staO report showing “Production” and claimed, “any future commercial uses are limited to those similar to existing uses in the building, which are media production and event production oOices.” This is false. The uses are determined at the time the use became nonconforming, not as a particular lease rolls oO.

Furthermore, the categories of use were not as granular at the time the building became residential. Prior to the LUCE and zoning update, the building was C2. Assuming the oOice building was being used for oOice use, the use category at that time was “general oOice”.

Not production, not creative, not anything more specific. Just “general oOice”. So general oOice use continues to be permitted if the oOice building was being used as an oOice when the zoning changed.

StaO failed to include what the uses were at that time in the staO report, and refused to provide the information when asked by the residents. StaO also failed to include a chart that sets forth all of the uses permitted as a legal nonconforming use in the staO report and Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 3 also refused to provide this information when asked by the residents. Maybe that part of the staO report was written by Harding Larmore? Maybe including those facts would reveal the farce of this upzoning?
We got an email from the property manager the day of the last meeting that said, “We're simply seeking the ability to lease to other professional oOice tenants (like accounting firms) so the building can remain economically viable as an oOice building. Nothing more.” Well, City code appears to say they already CAN.
b. Vacancy of Entire Building, Not One Space
StaO (or perhaps Harding Larmore) stated, “if a tenant space is vacant for more than 1 year, the prior nonconforming use (e.g. production oOice) is considered abandoned, and the tenant space must be filled with a use permitted in the R1 zoning district.” This is false.

Here is what the Code really says. Section 9.27.020 states that a “lawful nonconforming use” as “an occupancy or activity that was established in compliance with the standards and requirements in eOect at the time it is commenced and has not been abandoned withing the same structure or on the same parcel since that date but does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance including, but not limited to, permitted use, location, intensity, operational characteristics, performance standards or hours of operation.”
That means that so long as the use continues somewhere in the structure or on the parcel (i.e. there is at least one space in the building that continues to be leased as an oOice), then the use (an oOice) is not abandoned anywhere in the building.

Why is the city attorney allowing such a blatant misrepresentation of the city code?

2. The “Solution” is Still a Legal Nonconforming Use.

StaO claims the change to Neighborhood Commercial is needed to resolve the legal nonconfoming use problem. StaO told you, “The property owner has stated that the nonconforming condition created by the rezoning to R1 presents impediments to future leasing and financing for the existing commercial oOice building.” As many comments confirmed at the last meeting, the building is fully leased, filling the most recent vacancy just last year.

Any future vacancy is purely speculative and unsubstantiated.

But staO is asking you to expand the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district oO the boulevard to include the building to solve this “problem”. I say staO, but public records have revealed that a significant portion of the staO report, resolutions and ordinance were drafted by the owner’s counsel, Harding Larmore.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 4 The property manager said, “We're simply seeking the ability to lease to other professional oOice tenants (like accounting firms) so the building can remain economically viable as an oOice building. Nothing more.”
But guess what? General oOice use is not allowed on the ground floor in Neighborhood Commercial. So the use of this building for the past 70 years REMAINS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE ON THE GROUND FLOOR after upzoning.

Even if the building had been designated NC in 2010 or 2015, it would have been a legal nonconforming use then (and now) because it’s oOice space on the bottom floor.

That is why it was purposeful, and consistent with the LUCE, to designate and zone the building residential. Commercial activity was deliberately kept on the boulevards and any commercial activity remaining in the residential neighborhood could do so only as a legal nonconforming use. This is confirmed by the Council’s May 15, 2015 resolution:
“WHEREAS, the City has a long history of creating and maintaining bu?ers between commercial and residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, participants in the LUCE adoption process identified neighborhood preservation as the highest priority of the planning process; and
WHEREAS, a key goal of the LUCE includes maintaining an appropriate town-scale and balanced growth while encouraging certain types of development; and WHEREAS, this goal focuses on the retention of neighborhood character, development that is well-designed and consistent with the desired neighborhood scale, preservation of older buildings, and adaptive reuse of historic properties;”
The building has been an oOice since 1956, almost 70 years. It’s fully leased. Under the current residential zoning, it would have to be entirely vacant for over a year to no longer be leased as oOice space. That very same hurdle exists if you zone it NC. Nothing changes, except for their ability to bring in types of activity that were never intended to be in a residential neighborhood, in violation of the LUCE.

3. The Resolution and Ordinance Become City Council’s Words StaO continues to misrepresent the legal nonconforming use issue and continues to lie about the LUCE and zoning changes, claiming it was inadvertent or in error. But these lies become your lies when you approve the land use resolution and ordinance. “Lie” is a strong word, but it is the appropriate characterization when staO continues to make statements that have been proved false by the residents since March.

Attached are copies of both, highlighted to show the false statements in red, and the unsubstantiated statements in yellow. This is only what has been demonstrated false or Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 5 unsubstantiated in public comments so far. If we had more time, it’s likely we would find more. (See attached.)
Here is a list of verifiably false statements repeated in the land use resolution and ordinance that will be your words:
• The land use change was inadvertent.
• The lots were inadvertently excluded from parcel discrepancy list. • Amending the land use designation corrects the inadvertent designation. • Amending the land use designation is consistent with the general plan. • Amending to Neighborhood Commercial land use will rectify the nonconforming conditions.
• The zoning change was inadvertent and changing it back is a correction. • Amending the zoning to NC is consistent with the general plan. • The change in district boundaries is consistent in principle with the General Plan. • The change will align the Districting Map with the historic existing commercial use. • The change in District Boundaries promotes growth in an orderly manner. • The change in District Boundaries promotes the public health, safety and general welfare in that the change will align the Districting Map with the existing commercial development of the lots.
• Amending to NC zoning will rectify the nonconforming conditions. • The change in district boundaries is necessary to achieve the balance of land uses desired by the City, consistent with the General Plan.
• In May, Council decided to table the adoption of the amendments to the OOicial Districting Map to a later date.

Here is a list of unsubstantiated statements repeated in the land use resolution and ordinance that will be your words:
• Nonconforming uses create impediments to future leasing opportunities and financing.
• Changing the land use designation map removes impediments to leasing and uses. • Changing the zoning removes impediments to leasing and uses. • Changing the district boundaries is necessary to increase the inventory of land within a given district.
• Since May, there were renewed requests from the property owner and new information submitted in support of the upzoning.
• The parking lot will remain unchanged.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 6 This illegal spot upzoning is the eOort (and work product) of a lobbyist disguised as a staO item. And now you know that this isn’t even a solution to the claimed problem, which confirms the ruse. Please don’t reward unethical misuse of staO time and city resources, and potential violations of your lobbying rules.

The right thing to do here is REJECT the covenant, OPPOSE the second reading of the ordinance, and ask staO to come back to RESCIND the land use change from the September 30 meeting. If not, you are forcing residents to consider all their rights and remedies, which includes more litigation this city cannot aOord.

Regards,
Nikki KolhoO
Santa Monica Resident and Project Neighbor

YOU CAN STILL FIX THIS
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) Statements in conflict with upzoning.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) Clarification: No 85-foot building allowed on 2644 30th Street From: Jeffrey Palmer ([email protected]) To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 at 04:32 PM PDT
Dear Neighbors,
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns about our property at 2644 30th Street. I want to be absolutely clear about what we're proposing.

What we're NOT asking for: We are NOT seeking to redevelop this property into an 85-foot residential building. We CANNOT build an 85-foot building on this site. We have voluntarily agreed to a 10-year covenant that legally prohibits any redevelopment into housing or taller construction. Our goal is to preserve the existing commercial building and ensure its long-term viability in the face of the tough commercial leasing environment, not to change the character of your neighborhood.

What we ARE asking for: We're simply seeking the ability to lease to other professional office tenants (like accounting firms) so the building can remain economically viable as an office building. Nothing more. The simple way to do this is to place the portion of the property that is occupied with the existing commercial building back into commercial zoning like it was when we bought the property and for decades (and was so for decades).

Why this matters: The R1 zoning causes our 30,000+ sq. ft. commercial building to be a "legal nonconforming building" and the existing uses within the building became "legal non-conforming uses." Under the City's regulations, this creates an impossible situation: we can only lease to the exact same type of tenant as before (e.g. entertainment office versus an accounting firm), and if any space sits vacant for more than one year, we permanently lose the right to use it. This could eventually render the entire building unusable.

Why this benefits the community: Keeping this building occupied with professional offices maintains property values, provides local jobs, and keeps your neighborhood vibrant rather than seeing a large vacant building hit with vagrancy issues. An occupied, well-maintained office building is better for everyone than the alternative of increasing vacancy and potential blight.

Looking ahead: When the City undertakes future citywide rezoning efforts, this site can be reconsidered in conjunction with the entire neighborhood. We believe addressing the non-conforming use restrictions more broadly would create unintended complications and other objections citywide. Our request is narrowly tailored to maintain the existing office building in its current use to maintain the viability of the existing building.

I understand the concerns about development in our community because I share them. All we're asking for is the ability to keep this building functioning with commercial uses. We're not trying to change anything about the neighborhood you love. We're just trying to preserve what's already there.

I appreciate your consideration and am happy to discuss any questions.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Palmer
PMI Properties | 1000 Roscomare Road | Los Angeles, CA 90077 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice about:blank 1/1
Type text here
Statements in conflict with upzoning.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) CHAPTER 9.27

NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES
§ 9.27.010. Purpose.

This Chapter's standards have been developed in recognition of the City's policies related to historic preservation, adaptive reuse, and sustainability and provide for the continuation of uses, continued occupancy and maintenance of structures, and development of parcels that were lawfully established but do not now comply with all of the standards and requirements of this Ordinance so long as the uses, continued occupancy, and maintenance meet the provisions of this Chapter.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) § 9.27.020. Definitions.

Any lawfully established use or structure that is in existence on the effective date of this Ordinance but does not comply with all of the standards and requirements of this Ordinance or subsequent amendment including, but not limited to, the lack of an approved permit or other required authorization shall be considered nonconforming. Unless otherwise specified, the term "nonconforming" as used in this Ordinance shall mean "lawful nonconforming" as defined herein.

Lawful nonconforming use. An occupancy or activity that was established in compliance with the standards and requirements in effect at the time it commenced and has not been abandoned within the same structure or on the same parcel since that date but does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance including, but not limited to, permitted use, location, intensity, operational characteristics, performance standards or hours of operation.

City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.010 § 9.27.030
***********
A. Change of Ownership. A change of ownership, tenancy, or management of a nonconforming use shall not affect its status as a legal, nonconforming use.

B. Abandonment. If a nonconforming use of a building, structure, or parcel ceases for a continuous period of one year or more, the use shall be considered abandoned, and the building, structure, or parcel shall thereafter be used only in accordance with the regulations for the District in which it is located except as provided below. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Director that the use was legally established and has not been abandoned. Notwithstanding the above, no nonconforming residential use shall be considered abandoned regardless of the length of time of non-use unless the Director determines the building is dangerous, unsafe, a health and safety hazard, and/or uninhabitable, and these conditions cannot be remedied. § 9.27.050. Legal Nonconforming Uses.

A legal, nonconforming use may be maintained subject to the following provisions:

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 1 City Council Meeting September 30, 2025 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

AMENDING THE SANTA MONICA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP REGARDING TWO LOTS LOCATED WITHIN 2644 30TH STREET
WHEREAS, the Northwest 60 feet of lots 78 and 83 of Tract No. 1980 (the “Commercial Lots”, also shown on the map included in Attachment “A”) was developed in 1956 as a commercial office building, which includes approximately 35,000 square feet of leasable space; and
WHEREAS, historically, since at least 1961, this portion of the Commercial Lots was designated as C2 (Limited Commercial) on the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Districting Maps; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2010, the City Council adopted the Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”) of the City’s General Plan, which included an amendment to the General Plan Use Map; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Official Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, when the General Plan Land Use and the Official Districting Maps were amended as part of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update, the subject Commercial Lots were changed to Single Family Housing in the Land Use Map and Single-Unit Residential (R1) in the Official Districting Map, respectively; and WHEREAS, this rezoning to Single Family Housing appears to have been inadvertent given the longstanding use of the property and prior designation as Limited Commerical; and
Red = False Statement Yellow = Unsubstantiated Statement Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 2 WHEREAS, during the public review process and in the course of analyzing the boundaries of the newly created zoning districts, inconsistencies between the adopted LUCE Land Use Designation Map and the then existing Official Districting Map were identified as reflected in the April 14, 2015, Staff Report to City Council; and WHEREAS, as a result of the identified inconsistencies, City Staff attempted to compare the LUCE Map with the existing Official Districting Map in the City, to generate a listing of inconsistent parcels, and
WHEREAS, a list of 115 parcels with such inconsistencies (“Inconsistent Parcel List”) was prepared and included with the Staff Report to the Planning Commission and were reviewed in detail on June 18, 2014 and October 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Inconsistent Parcel List was also included and discussed in the April 14, 2015, City Council Staff Report and reviewed by the City Council prior to their voting on the Zoning Ordinance Districting Map; and WHEREAS, the majority of these inconsistent parcels were those in the City whose land designations were changed to a commercial designation with the adoption of the LUCE Land Use Designation Map and were inconsistent with their predominantly residential zoning or partial residential zoning; and WHEREAS, however, a portion of the properties on the Inconsistent Parcel List were those designated commercial/industrial on the then-existing Official Districting Map and improved with commercial/industrial uses but had been designated residential on the 2010 LUCE map; and
WHEREAS, the subject Commercial Lots appear to be similarly situated to these previously identified formerly commercial/industrial parcels; however, the Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 3 subject Commercial Lots were inadvertently not included on the Inconsistent Parcel List; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) amending the LUCE map to, among other things, change the LUCE designation for certain parcels that had been identified on the Inconsistent Parcel List as having inconsistent LUCE and then-existing Zoning Districting Map designations; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Districting Map that designated the Commercial Lots as R1; and
WHEREAS, there are no permitted commercial uses in the Single-Unit Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the change of the Commercial Lots to the Single Family Residential designation has resulted in the existing building becoming both a legal, nonconforming building and the existing uses becoming legal, nonconforming uses and, thus, creates impediments to future leasing opportunities and financing for the property given the limitations of the Single Family Housing designation and zoning of R1; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.060(B), the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Number 25-003 (PCS), a Resolution of Intention, declaring its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the Council, among other things, amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map of the City of Santa Monica for the Commercial Lots located at 2466 30th Street; and
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 4 WHEREAS, amending the General Land Use Map to zone the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street as Neighborhood Commercial will correct the prior inadvertent designation and reflect the longstanding use of the Commercial Lots, removing impediments to future leasing and changes of use of the Commercial Lots; and WHEREAS, amending the General Land Use Map to zone Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street as Neighborhood Commercial will correct the prior inadvertent designation and reflect the longstanding use of the property, ensure consistency with the General Plan, and remove impediments to future leasing and changes of use of the Commercial Lots, including the existing building; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and, after considering oral and written testimony regarding the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map, adopted Resolution Number 25- 007 (PCS), recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Map for the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street; and WHEREAS, the adjacent parking lot that is designated in the Land Use Map as Single Family Residential and in the Official Districting Map as R-1 Single-Unit Residential will remain unchanged; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, decided to table the adoption of the amendments to the Official Districting Map to a later date; and WHEREAS, after renewed requests from the property owner and new information submitted in support thereof, on September 30, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, desires to amend Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 5 the General Land Use Map for the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street as set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Based upon the oral and written testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing on September 30, 2025, regarding the proposed change to the General Land Use Map for the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street, the City Council hereby makes the following findings regarding the Amendments to the General Plan Map:

Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.080, the City Council does hereby amend the General Plan Land Use Map for the parcel located at 2644 30th Street because although subject parcel is currently designated as Single Family Housing, it has been developed as a commercial office building since 1956 and was historically zoned as commercial, and when the General Plan Land Use Map was amended as part of the 2010 update to the Land Use and Circulation Element, the parcel’s designation was changed to Single Family Housing in the Land Use Map, which appears to have been inadvertent given the longstanding use of the property and prior C2, Neighborhood Commercial zoning of the parcel. This has created a nonconforming condition and impediments to future development, leasing opportunities, and financing for the property given the limitations of the Single Family Housing designation. The proposed change to Neighborhood Commercial will rectify these issues and align the LUCE designation with the development history of the parcel, ensure consistency between the General Plan Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 6 Land Use Map and the Official Districting Map, and address any nonconforming conditions and impediments to planned and future development of the parcel, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached to this Resolution is hereby amended to read as follows:

SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN,
Interim City Attorney
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 7 SECTION 2.EXHIBIT A
Amendment to the Zoning Designation in the Official Districting Map for the Commercial Lots Located within 2644 30th Street
Address APN Zoning
Classification
Proposed
Portion of 2644
30th St described
as Northwest 60
feet of lots 78 and
83 of Tract No.
1980 (see map
below)
Portion of
4270-016-
084
R1 (Single-Unit
Residential)
NC (Neighborhood
Commercial)
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 8 Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 1 City Council Meeting: September 30, 2025 Santa Monica, California

ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

AMENDING THE OFFICIAL DISTRICTING MAP OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA REGARDING TWO LOTS LOCATED WITHIN 2644 30TH STREET
WHEREAS, the Northwest 60 feet of lots 78 and 83 of Tract No. 1980 (the “Commercial Lots”, also shown on the map included in Attachment “A”) was developed in 1956 as a commercial office building, which includes approximately 35,000 square feet of leasable space; and
WHEREAS, historically, since at least 1961, this portion of the Commercial Lots was designated as C2 (Limited Commercial) on the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Districting Maps; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2010, the City Council adopted the Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”) of the City’s General Plan, which included an amendment to the General Plan Use Map; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Official Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, when the General Plan Land Use and the Official Districting Maps were amended as part of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update, the subject Commercial Lots were changed to Single Family Housing in the Land Use Map and Single-Unit Residential (R1) in the Official Districting Map, respectively; and WHEREAS, this rezoning to R1 appears to have been inadvertent given the longstanding use of the property and prior designation as C2; and Red = False Statement Yellow = Unsubstantiated Statement Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 2 WHEREAS, during the public review process and in the course of analyzing the boundaries of the newly created zoning districts, inconsistencies between the adopted LUCE Land Use Designation Map and the then existing Official Districting Map were identified as reflected in the April 14, 2015, Staff Report to City Council; and WHEREAS, as a result of the identified inconsistencies, City Staff attempted to compare the LUCE Map with the existing Official Districting Map in the City, to generate a listing of inconsistent parcels, and
WHEREAS, a list of 115 parcels with such inconsistencies (“Inconsistent Parcel List”) was prepared and included with the Staff Report to the Planning Commission and were reviewed in detail on June 18, 2014 and October 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Inconsistent Parcel List was also included and discussed in the April 14, 2015, City Council Staff Report and reviewed by the City Council prior to their voting on the Zoning Ordinance Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, the majority of these inconsistent parcels were those in the City whose land designations were changed to a commercial designation with the adoption of the LUCE Land Use Designation Map and were inconsistent with their predominantly residential zoning or partial residential zoning; and
WHEREAS, however, a portion of the properties on the Inconsistent Parcel List were those designated commercial/industrial on the then-existing Official Districting Map and improved with commercial/industrial uses but had been designated residential on the 2010 LUCE map; and
WHEREAS, the subject Commercial Lots appear to be similarly situated to these previously identified formerly commercial/industrial parcels; however, the subject Commercial Lots were inadvertently not included on the Inconsistent Parcel List; and Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 3 WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) amending the LUCE map to, among other things, change the LUCE designation for certain parcels that had been identified on the Inconsistent Parcel List as having inconsistent LUCE and then-existing Zoning Districting Map designations; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Districting Map that designated the Commercial Lots as R1; and
WHEREAS, there are no permitted commercial uses in the R1 Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the change of the Commercial Lots to the Single Family Housing designation and R1 zone has resulted in the existing building becoming a legal, nonconforming building and the existing uses becoming legal, nonconforming uses and, thus, creates impediments to future leasing opportunities and financing for the property given the limitations of the Single Family Housing designation and zoning of R1; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.060(B), the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Number 25-003 (PCS), a Resolution of Intention, declaring its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the Council, among other things, amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map of the City of Santa Monica for the Commercial Lots located at 2466 30th Street; and
WHEREAS, amending the Official Districting Map to zone the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street as NC (Neighborhood Commercial) will correct the prior inadvertent designation and reflect the longstanding use of the Commercial Lots, Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 4 removing impediments to future leasing and changes of use of the Commercial Lots; and
WHEREAS, amending the Official Districting Map to zone Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street as NC will correct the prior inadvertent designation and reflect the longstanding use of the property, ensure consistency with the General Plan, and remove impediments to future leasing and changes of use of the Commercial Lots, including the existing building; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and, after considering oral and written testimony regarding the proposed amendments to the Official Districting Map, adopted Resolution Number 25- 008 (PCS), recommending that the City Council amend the Official Districting Map for the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street based on the following findings:

1. The change in district boundaries is consistent in principle with the General Plan in that the proposed amendments will provide consistency between existing development and the Official Districting Map. Due to an inadvertent reclassification of the Commercial Lots during both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element update and the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update to Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), respectively, the commercial use of the Commercial Lots established in 1956 is now a nonconforming land use and the existing building on the Commercial Lots is a legal, nonconforming building. This inconsistency between the use and Official District Map has created impediments to future development due to the land use limitations of the R1 zoning district, leasing/changes of use tenant space within the building, and financing the property. The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with the historic existing commercial use of the Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 5 Commercial Lots;

2. The change in district boundaries is consistent with the purpose of this Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the proposed change will align the Official Districting Map with the existing commercial development of the Commercial Lots. Since 1956 the Commercial Lots have been developed as a commercial use, but inadvertently during both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element update and 2015 Zoning Ordinance update was reclassified as Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), respectively. This inconsistency between the use and zoning district has created impediments to future changes of use and development due to the land use limitations of the R1 zoning district, leasing tenant space within the building, and financing the property. The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with the historic existing use of the Commercial Lots; and

3. The change in district boundaries is necessary to achieve the balance of land uses desired by the City, consistent with the General Plan, and to increase the inventory of land within a given Zoning District in that the Commercial Lots have historically been developed with as a commercial use since 1956 and were zoned as such until it was inadvertently amended as part of both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation update and 2015 Zoning Ordinance update to Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), respectively. This inadvertent reclassification has resulted in a nonconforming condition and impediments to future development due to land use limitations of the R1 zoning district, leasing tenant space with the building, and financing the property. The proposed change will align the Official District Map for the Commercial Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 6 Lots with existing development; and
WHEREAS, the adjacent parking lot that is designated in the Land Use Map as Single Family Residential and in the Official Districting Map as R-1 Single-Unit Residential will remain unchanged; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, decided to table the adoption of the amendments to the Official Districting Map to a later date; and WHEREAS, after renewed requests from the property owner and new information submitted in support thereof, on September 30, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, desires to amend the Official Districting Map for the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street as set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Based upon the oral and written testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing on September 30, 2025, regarding the proposed change to the Official Districting Map for the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

Due to an inadvertent reclassification of the Commercial Lots during both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element update and the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update to Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 7 Residential), respectively, the commercial use of the Commercial Lots established in 1956 is now a nonconforming land use. This inconsistency between the use and Official District Map has created impediments to future leasing of tenant space within the building and financing the property due to the land use limitations of the R1 zoning district . The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with the historic existing commercial use of the Commercial Lots.

2. The change in district boundaries is consistent with the purpose of this Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the proposed change will align the Official Districting Map with the existing commercial development of the Commercial Lots. Since 1956 the Commercial Lots have been developed as a commercial use, but inadvertently during both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element update and 2015 Zoning Ordinance update were reclassified as Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), respectively. This inconsistency between the use and zoning district has created impediments to future leasing of tenant space within the building and financing the property due to the land use limitations of the R1 zoning district. The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with the historic existing use of the Commercial Lots.

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 8 the Commercial Lots have historically been developed with as a commercial use since 1956 and was zoned as such until it was inadvertently amended as part of both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation update and 2015 Zoning Ordinance update to Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), respectively. This inadvertent reclassification has resulted in a nonconforming condition and impediments to future leasing of tenant space within the building and financing the property due to land use limitations of the R1 zoning district. The proposed change will align the Official District Map for the Commercial Lots with existing development.

Section 2. The City of Santa Monica Official Districting Map is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto.

SECTION 3. Any provision of the Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 9 newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

HEIDI VON TONGELN
Interim City Attorney
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 10 EXHIBIT A
Amendment to the Zoning Designation in the Official Districting Map for the Commercial Lots Located within 2644 30th Street
Address APN Zoning
Classification
Proposed
Portion of 2644
30th St described
as Northwest 60
feet of lots 78 and
83 of Tract No.
1980 (see map
below)
Portion of
4270-016-
084
R1 (Single-Unit
Residential)
NC (Neighborhood
Commercial)
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 2 Mitchell Kois
From: Laura Kachergus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 3 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Laura Kachergus
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1307 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 4 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot.

It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it , eventually,
to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses.

This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.

Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:

City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue.

The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.

Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.

Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain.

Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city.

It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods.

Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.

Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1308 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 5 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street,
and instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.

Sincerely,
Nancy Hall
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Lois Bostwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 4:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Council members,
Are there plans for 6-8 story buildings on or just off Montana, like there are for Pico and Ocean Park Blvd.? Too high for any residential neighborhood, including ours! An increase in density, and traffic, needn't be that extreme.

Lois Bostwick
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 8:35 PM councilmtgitems <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for your email. Please be advised that this email will: 1) become part of the public record, 2) be filed with the City’s official records, and 3) be posted online at smgov.net/council/agendas. Comments will not be redacted and appear online as they are submitted.

If you plan to speak at the meeting and have an electronic presentation to show, please submit it to [email protected] no later than 12 PM on the day of the meeting.

Levine Act Disclosure. Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $250 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.

Thank you,
The City Clerk’s Office
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) 2 Mitchell Kois
From: George Ferrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 12:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

Sincerely,
Peggy and George Ferrell
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7347 : 2644 30th Street Parcel Map - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 14, 2025
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Approval of 2025 Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals Recommended Action
Staff recommend that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the report provided herein is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

2. Hold a public hearing, receive public comments, and approve the attached 2025 City of Santa Monica Report on Water Quality Relative to the Public Health Goals.

Summary
The City of Santa Monica Department of Public Works – Water Resources Division delivers high-quality drinking water to over 93,000 residents as well as businesses and visitors throughout the City. The City’s drinking water supply complies with all Federal and State drinking water standards. Provisions of the California Health and Safety Code Section 116470 require public water systems to prepare a report every three years that includes information on the detection of any elements in the water at levels above Public Health Goals (PHGs) or the equivalent Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs). PHGs are adopted by the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and MCLGs are set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A public hearing is required to accept and respond to public comments on the report. Staff has prepared a summary (Attachment A) and the 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to the Public Health Goals (Attachment B) to provide information on the water quality of the City’s drinking water supply relative to adopted PHGs and MCLGs.

12.A
Packet Pg. 1312
2 of 4
Discussion
The City’s water quality complies with all of the state and federal health-based drinking water standards established by the California State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water and U.S. EPA.

With advances in technology, the water industry can leverage ever-more sophisticated testing procedures to detect the presence of chemicals in water at levels of parts per billion (or roughly the equivalent of a single drop of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool). While the presence of any level of contaminants may be concerning to the public, state and federal health standards for drinking water are based on widely-accepted medical science data. The water quality of the City’s drinking water supply is monitored 24/7 across the water system and over 10,000 tests are conducted annually to ensure its quality and safety.

California’s State Water Resource Control Board - Division of Drinking Water and the EPA are responsible for setting regulations and drinking water standards. Drinking water goals include PHGs and MCLGs. PHGs are set by the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and they are the recommended target levels. MCLGs are set by the EPA and are the levels of contaminants in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to public health. Both PHGs and MCLGs are not water quality standards, and they are not required to be met by any public water system. PHGs and MCLGs are goals identifying extremely low risks.

These risks, when normally assessed, pertain to one in one million persons drinking the water over a seventy-year period who may be at risk from a contaminant based on assumptions and theoretical extrapolations available.

Drinking water standards are referenced as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Notification Levels (NLs). MCLs are the highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water. They are set as closely to PHGs and MCLGs as economically and technically feasible. MCLs are enforceable water quality standards that public water systems must meet. NLs are the concentrations of a contaminant which, if exceeded, trigger treatment or other requirements that public water systems must comply with.

12.A
Packet Pg. 1313
3 of 4
The City’s water quality complies with all of the health-based drinking water standards established by the California State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The 2025 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (Attachment A) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the State Health and Safety Code. The report assesses the quality of the City’s groundwater and imported water supplies against PHGs and MCLGs. Trace substances in the City’s water supply are all below the applicable drinking water MCLs required by state and federal regulatory agencies for a safe and high-quality drinking water supply (please refer to Attachment C for the City’s latest annual water quality report). No additional actions are recommended for the treatment of the City’s potable water supply. Copies of the report are available for public review at the City Clerk’s office, the Water Resources Division office, the Main Library, and online at https://www.santamonica.gov/topic-explainers/your-guide-towater. A public notice advising of the availability of the report was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press on September 30, 2025.

Environmental Review
The City of Santa Monica Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals is not a “project” subject to CEQA. The report is administrative in nature and provides updates on water quality. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the report does not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA as it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Therefore, the report is not subject to CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required

12.A
Packet Pg. 1314
4 of 4
in the future.

Prepared By: Sunny Wang, Water Resources Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Report on Water Quality Relative to PHGs Summary
B. 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals C. 2025 Annual Water Quality Report
D. Powerpoint Presentation

12.A
Packet Pg. 1315
Summary of City of Santa Monica Report on
Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals
Each year the City of Santa Monica publishes its Annual Water Quality Report which includes details about the water that Santa Monica residents and businesses use every day. Along with information regarding important current water issues, the annual report includes information required by the Federal and State governments to illustrate how the quality of the water at the consumer’s tap compares against established water quality standards. These water quality standards are established by Federal and State regulations as MCLs (Maximum Contaminant Levels). Consistently, Santa Monica’s water is shown to be in full compliance with all regulatory water quality standards.

Every three years, all water agencies in California are required to prepare a Public Health Goal (PHG) report. A PHG is the concentration of a contaminant in drinking water that poses no significant health risk if consumed for a lifetime. PHG standards are lower than Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), are strictly health based, and include a margin of safety. The purpose of this report is to provide consumers with information on levels of contaminants even below the enforceable MCLs to inform them of whatever risks might be posed by the presence of these contaminants at levels below the MCLs. PHGs are not enforceable because the Best Available Technology to reach such low levels has not been defined and/or may not be available, and cost analyses are not reliable since estimates are speculative and theoretical.

Details about Public Health Goals, how they were developed, what they mean, and the current state of the City’s water quality are included in the 2025 City of Santa Monica Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals. The report will be received and filed at a public hearing by the Santa Monica City Council on Tuesday, October 28, 2025. Public comments can also be heard at this time. This report is available for public review at the City Clerk’s office in City Hall, the Main Library, the Water Resources Division office, and online at the Water Resources Division website at https://www.santamonica.gov/topic-explainers/your-guide-to-water.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: Report on Water Quality Relative to PHGs Summary (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

REPORT ON WATER QUALITY

RELATIVE TO
PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS (PHGs)
June 2025

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 1

BACKGROUND
A Public Health Goal (PHG) is a health risk assessment, not a proposed drinking water standard. It is the level of a constituent in drinking water, which is considered not to pose a significant risk to health if consumed for a lifetime. This determination is reassessed every three years and made without regard to cost or treatability.

The California legislature created the concept of PHGs, and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal-EPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) researches and establishes PHGs. The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) - Division of Drinking Water (DDW), formerly the California Department of Public Health, then uses PHGs to evaluate health-related drinking water standard and establish Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). PHGs, as well as cost and technical feasibility estimates, provide the basis for revising and setting new contaminant MCLs to protect public health.

Provisions of the California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b) (Exhibit A) require that large water utilities (>10,000 service connections) prepare a special report by July 1, 2025 if their water quality measurements exceeded any PHGs in the three previous calendar years. The law also requires that where OEHHA has not adopted a PHG for a contaminant, the water suppliers are to use the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). MCLGs are the federal equivalent to PHGs, but they are not identical. This report includes constituents that have Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS) and a set PHG or MCLG. PDWS may be an MCL or Treatment Technique (TT). A TT is appointed when it is not feasible or appropriate to set a numerical standard (e.g. the Lead and Copper Rule). Exhibit B is a list of all regulated constituents with MCLs and PHGs or MCLGs.

There are a few constituents that are routinely detected in water systems at levels usually well below the drinking water standards for which no PHG nor MCLG have yet been adopted by OEHHA or USEPA. These include total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) among others.

This report provides the following information as specified in the Health and Safety Code (Exhibit A) for each constituent detected in the City of Santa Monica’s (City) water supply in 2022, 2023, and 2024 at a level exceeding an applicable PHG or MCLG:
• Numerical public health risk associated with the MCL and the PHG or MCLG (Exhibit C).
• Category or type of risk to health that could be associated with each constituent. • Best Available Treatment Technology that could be used to reduce the constituent level.
• Estimate of the cost to install that treatment if it is appropriate and feasible.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 2
OVERVIEW OF SANTA MONICA’S TREATMENT FACILITIES
The City’s current domestic water supply consists of local groundwater and purchased imported water (either from the State Water Project or the Colorado River) from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The City extracts local groundwater from ten active groundwater wells located in the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin. Five of these wells are located in the Charnock subbasin, two are located in the Olympic subbasin, and three are located in the Arcadia subbasin.

Three of the five wells located in the Charnock subbasin are pretreated at the Charnock Water Treatment Plant (Charnock WTP) through greensand filtration and two-stage biological granular activated carbon filters to remove volatile organic carbon compounds from historical industrial pollution and then blended with the two other Charnock wells prior to being pumped to the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant (Arcadia WTP) for further treatment.

Groundwater from the Olympic Well Field is treated through the new Olympic Advanced Water Treatment Facility (Olympic AWTF) to remove industrial contaminants through greensand filtration, ultraviolet light advanced oxidation, and two-stage granular activated carbon filters before it is blended with other groundwater sources for further treatment at the Arcadia WTP. Groundwater pumped from Arcadia subbasins are also treated at the Arcadia WTP.

The Arcadia WTP provides multi-barrier treatment to the majority of the City’s groundwater wells to reduce hardness in the groundwater and meet all federal and state drinking water regulations. The Arcadia WTP consists of greensand filtration, reverse osmosis filtration, air stripping towers, and chemical disinfection. Final treated water from the Arcadia WTP is sent to the 5-million-gallon (MG) Arcadia Reservoir and distributed for potable water use throughout the City. In addition to the Arcadia Reservoir, the City also owns and operates three additional water storage reservoirs representing a total storage capacity of 40 MG: Riviera Reservoir, Mt. Olivette Reservoir, and San Vincente Reservoir. Only one groundwater well, SM-1, located in the Arcadia subbasin is distributed, after disinfection at the well head, directly into the water distribution system as it does not require any additional treatment to meet federal and state drinking water regulations.

APPLICATION OF PHGs
• PHGs are set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) which is part of Cal-EPA.
• PHGs are based solely on public health risk considerations. None of the riskmanagement factors that are considered by DDW in setting drinking water standards are considered in setting the PHGs. These factors include analytical detection capabilities, treatment technology available, benefits and costs.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 3
• PHGs are not enforceable and are not required to be met by any public water system.

MCLGs are federal equivalent to PHGs and are set by the USEPA.

WATER QUALITY DATA CONSIDERED
All the water quality data collected for Santa Monica’s water system between 2022 and 2024 for purposes of determining compliance with drinking water standards was considered. This information was summarized in our Annual Water Quality Reports made available to all Santa Monica customers, residents, and businesses in June 2023, June 2024, and June 2025 (Exhibit D).

A majority of DDW mandated constituents with a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) were tested for in Santa Monica’s water system and were reported as Not Detected (ND). Constituents with the greatest relevance to the public are listed in the Annual Water Quality Reports. A constituent reported as ND generally means that the laboratory did not detect the compound, or that it was detected at a level less than California’s Detection Level for purposes of Reporting (DLR).

GUIDELINES FOLLOWED
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) formed a workgroup, which prepared guidelines for water utilities to use in preparing PHG reports. These guidelines were used in the preparation of this report. No general guidelines are available from the state regulatory agencies. ACWA’s workgroup also prepared guidelines for water utilities to use in estimating the costs to reduce a constituent to the MCL. Exhibit E provides cost estimates in 2024 dollars for the best treatment technologies that are available today.

BEST AVAILABLE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY AND COST ESTIMATES
Both the USEPA and DDW have adopted what are known as Best Available Technologies (BATs), which are the best-known methods of reducing contaminant levels to achieve compliance with MCLs. Capital construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs can be estimated for such technologies. However, since many PHGs and MCLGs are set much lower than the MCL, it is not always possible or feasible to determine the treatment needed to meet the PHG or MCLG. For example, USEPA sets the MCLG for potential cancer-causing chemicals at zero. Estimating the costs to reduce a constituent to zero is difficult, if not impossible, because it is not possible to verify by analytical means that the level has been lowered to zero. In some cases, installing treatment to try and further reduce very low levels of one constituent may have adverse effects on other aspects of water quality.

CONSTITUENTS DETECTED THAT EXCEED A PHG OR A MCLG
The following is a discussion of constituents that were detected in one or more of the City’s drinking water sources at levels exceeding the PHG or, if no PHG exists, above

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 4
the MCLG. Drinking water sources that directly enter the distribution system are comprised of the treated water from the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant, Santa Monica Well #1, and treated imported MWD water from Weymouth Plant and Jensen Plant..

The health risk information for regulated constituents with MCLs, PHGs, or MCLGs is provided in Exhibit C.
• Total Coliform Bacteria
Total coliform bacteria are measured at approximately 100 sites around the City. The MCL requires that no more than 5% of all samples collected in a month can be positive for total coliforms, and the MCLG requires zero positive samples per month. There is no PHG for total coliform bacteria, thus the MCLG is followed. The reason for the total coliform drinking water standard is to minimize the possibility of the water containing pathogens, which are organisms that cause waterborne disease. Total coliform analysis serves as a surrogate indicator of the potential presence of pathogens, it is not possible to state a specific numerical health risk. While USEPA normally sets MCLGs “at a level where no known or anticipated adverse effects on persons would occur”, USEPA indicates that it cannot do so with total coliforms. Nevertheless, without the ability to determine a specific numerical risk, the MCLG has been set at zero for total coliform bacteria.

Coliform bacteria are a group of indicator organisms that are ubiquitous in nature and are not generally considered harmful. They are used because of the ease in monitoring and analysis. If a positive sample is found, it indicates a potential problem that needs to be investigated with follow-up sampling. It is not at all unusual for a system to have an occasional positive sample. In Santa Monica, approximately 80 of the total coliform bacteria sample sites are taken from resident or business taps, such as hose bibbs.

Many of these taps are exposed to the environment and while they provide a satisfactory sample point most of the time, occasionally the tap itself may become exposed to bacteria from the environment, e.g. overgrown plants, pets and humans.

When samples are drawn from these exposed taps, they may test positive on rare occasion.

During the 2022 – 2024 period, the City collected between 119 and 142 samples each month for total coliform analysis. No repeat samples were confirmed positive for Total Coliform Bacteria from 2022 - 2024. The Annual Water Quality Reports, also known as CCRs, state that the highest percent of monthly samples positive was 1.60% in 2022,

1.60% in 2023, and 0 in 2024. This percent includes sample locations that initially tested positive, however, they were resampled and confirmed having no presence of Coliform Bacteria. City of Santa Monica’s water system was well below the 5% monthly positive rate that would require further corrective action/investigation to take place.

In order to reduce the potential for positive results due to taps exposed to the open environment, the Water Resources Division (WRD) has a program to prioritize the sites and install more dedicated sampling stations in conjunction with the WRD’s main line

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 5
replacement program. The dedicated sampling stations are enclosed in a lockable box and are protected from the environment.

The WRD already maintains an effective cross connection control program, a disinfectant residual throughout the system, an effective monitoring and surveillance program, and positive pressure in all parts of the distribution system. The WRD has already taken all steps described by the DDW as Best Available Technology (BAT) for Coliform Bacteria in Section 64447, Title 22, CCR. Since it is unlikely that any change to the treatment process at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant would prevent the occasional positive test result at distribution sampling sites, staff recommends no change to the existing treatment.
• Lead and Copper
There are no MCLs for lead or copper. Lead and copper are not present in our water sources, but they can leach into drinking water through the residents’ plumbing systems and faucets. Instead of MCLs, every three years a set of special samples is collected, and the results evaluated to determine whether the City’s water system has achieved “optimized corrosion control”. The samples collected are first-draw at the tap of thirty or more homes identified as high-risk (new plumbing installed with lead solder before it was banned). To meet drinking water standards, the 90th percentile reading (meaning 90% of the samples were lower) of all samples collected by the City from these household taps cannot exceed an Action Level (AL) of 0.015 mg/L for lead and 1.3 mg/L for copper. The PHG for lead is 0.0002 mg/L (0.2 ppb) and the PHG for copper is 0.3 mg/L.

There are three categories of health risk associated with lead - chronic toxicity (neurobehavioral effects in children, hypertension in adults) and cancer. The numerical health risk of ingesting drinking water with lead above the Action Level is 2X10-6, or two additional theoretical cancer cases in one million people drinking two liters of water a day for 70 years.

The last round of testing for lead and copper was conducted by the Water Resources WRD in 2022 (next round is summer 2025). The 90th percentile reading for lead in the last round was 0.0021 mg/L and was 0.2 mg/L for copper. Lead levels were above the PHGs, but below the Action Levels, which means the City continued to meet water quality standards for lead and copper and was again considered to have “optimized corrosion control”.

In general, optimizing corrosion control is considered the Best Available Technology to address corrosion issues and any lead and copper findings. The WRD will continue to monitor water quality parameters that relate to corrosivity, such as pH, hardness, alkalinity, and total dissolved solids, and will act, if necessary, to maintain our system in an “optimized corrosion control” condition.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 6
Since the City’s water supply continues to meet the “optimized corrosion control” requirements, it is not prudent to initiate additional corrosion control treatment until such time as changing conditions might warrant further action. Therefore, no estimate of cost has been included in this report and no recommendations for further action are advised. • Bromate
Bromate is a disinfection byproduct (DBP) formed when water containing naturally occurring bromide ion is ozonated. Long-term exposure to bromate in drinking water may cause cancer; thus, the Bromate MCL was adopted in 2002 to address the potential health effect. The standard applies only to water treatment plants that apply ozone for disinfection and does not apply to the City’s groundwater or treatment system.

The standard does apply to supplemental water the City imports directly from MWD’s Jensen and Weymouth Treatment Plants. After more than two decades of planning and construction, MWD has retrofitted all five of its water treatment plants to use ozone, rather than chlorine, as the primary disinfectant. The upgrade has driven DBP levels in MWD’s system to historically low levels and complies with stringent regulations that limit the level of DBPs in drinking water. Ozonation also improves drinking water aesthetics, offers protection from pathogens, and reduces other potential contaminants such as cyanotoxins. MWD controls Bromate by adjusting pH, or by adding chloramine (a combination of ammonia and chlorine) prior to the water reaching the ozone contactors.

The PHG for bromate is 0.0001 mg/L. The MCL for bromate is 0.010 mg/L. The MCL for bromate does not apply to single readings but is instead compared to a Running Annual Average (RAA). For 2022 – 2024, the highest RAAs from MWD’s imported water from Weymouth Plant exceeded the PHG measuring at 0.0024 mg/L in 2023 and

0.0020 mg/L in 2024. The highest RAAs from the Jensen Plant measured 0.0072 mg/L in 2022, 0.0076 mg/L in 2023, and 0.0031 mg/L in 2024 and exceeded the PHG.

However, there were no recordings of bromate levels above the MCL.

An increased risk of developing cancer is the category for health risk associated with drinking water containing bromate above the MCL for many years. OEHHA has determined that the numerical cancer risk for bromate above the PHG level is 1x10-6, or one additional theoretical cancer case in one million people drinking two liters of water a day for 70 years.

The BAT to reduce bromate is control of the ozone treatment process. The City does not have any control over imported water quality and as such, this is a process that is under the control and jurisdiction of MWD that is already being conducted. Therefore, no recommendations for further action will not be addressed in this report. • Uranium
The PHG for Uranium is 0.43 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) and the MCL is 20 pCi/L.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 7
Uranium is a naturally occurring metallic element which is weakly radioactive and is ubiquitous in the earth’s crust. Uranium is found in ground and surface waters due to its natural occurrence in geological formations. The average Uranium concentrations in surface and ground water are 1 and 2 pCi/L respectively. The Uranium intake from water is about equal to the total from other dietary components.

Uranium levels always tested below the MCL for all water sources from 2022 – 2024; however, all sources exceeded the PHG at least once during this period.

Uranium readings in water out of the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant ranged from 1.1 pCi/L to 2.2 pCi/L; the annual averages from the plant ranged from 1.2 to 2.0 pCi/L for 2022 – 2024. Annual averages of water from MWD’s Weymouth and Jensen plants ranged from ND (Reporting Limit was 0.7 pCi/L) to 2 pCi/L for years 2022 – 2024.

An increased risk of developing cancer is the health risk category associated with drinking water containing Uranium above the MCL for many years. OEHHA has determined that the numerical cancer risk for Uranium above the PHG level is 1x10-6, or one additional theoretical cancer case in one million people drinking two liters of water a day for 70 years.

There are several BATs designated to lower Uranium to below the MCL including RO.

The City’s Arcadia Water Treatment Plant uses RO as part of its multi-barrier treatment process and to soften the local groundwater. The RO system also achieves some reduction of Uranium that may be present in the City’s groundwater supplies. However, BATs are designed for treatment to achieve compliance with the corresponding MCL only, and not PHGs; thus, RO treatment did not achieve reduction of Uranium to below the PHG. Further treatment to reduce Uranium at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant is neither practical, nor feasible.

It is not practical or feasible to estimate costs for the reduction of Uranium from the supplemental water the City purchases from MWD. Therefore, no estimate of cost has been included in this report and no recommendations for further action are advised. • Arsenic
The PHG for Arsenic is 0.000004 mg/L (4.0 ppt). The MCL for Arsenic is 0.01 mg/L.

Arsenic is a naturally occurring metallic element found in water generally at low levels throughout California and elsewhere due to the erosion of mineral deposits. It can also enter water supplies from runoff from agricultural and industrial sites. The MCL was lowered in 2006 due to increasing evidence of potential detrimental health effects even at low levels. The concern is that long-term exposure to Arsenic in drinking water may cause skin damage, problems with circulatory systems, and may cause cancer.

Arsenic was below the MCL and PHG in all the City’s water sources during 2022 – 2024. Arsenic readings for all sources during this report period were measured as ND (Reporting Limit was 0.0005 mg/L).

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 8
The Jensen Water Treatment Plant reported one exceedance above the PHG of arsenic at 0.0024 mg/L in 2022, but ND in 2023 and 2024. Still, this occurrence remained below the MCL. The Weymouth Water Treatment Plant reported ND for arsenic during 2022 – 2024. These two facilities are owned and operated by MWD.

An increased risk of cancer the health risk category for long-term exposure to drinking water containing Arsenic above the MCL. The numerical health risk of ingesting drinking water with Arsenic above the PHG is 1X10-6, or one additional theoretical cancer cases in one million people drinking two liters of water a day for 70 years.

It is not practical or feasible to estimate costs for the reduction of Arsenic from the supplemental water the City purchases from MWD, the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant or Santa Monica Well #1. Therefore, no estimate of cost has been included in this report and no recommendations for further action are advised. • Other Radionuclides
There are several radionuclides for which OEHHA has not set PHGs, but for which an MCLG has been designated by USEPA. The standards include the following radionuclides: alpha emitters, beta/photon emitters, combined radium as well as the standard for Uranium described above. In addition to these standards, USEPA has designated an MCLG of zero for each. The groundwater and supplemental water supplies for Santa Monica always tested below the MCLs for these constituents during 2022 – 2024; however, the MCLGs of zero for some of these radionuclides were exceeded at some sources at various times during this period.

Radionuclides are radioactive elements that are found in nature or are man-made.

They are unstable and emit particles or waves of high energy from the nucleus or other parts of the atom. There are three basic kinds of high-energy radiation: alpha, beta, and gamma (included in a broader group called photons). Many radionuclides emit more than one kind of radiation, but they are classified by their most important kind. The MCL for alpha emitters limits the level of “gross alpha” radiation other than what is contributed by Uranium and radon. The MCL for beta/photon emitters limits the level of radiation from a group of 179 man-made radioactive materials. The MCL for combined radium limits the radiation on two kinds (or “isotopes”) of radium: radium-226 and radium-228. These MCLs were adopted to address concern with the health effects from radiation inside the body after consuming the radionuclides because evidence suggests that long-term exposure to radionuclides in drinking water may cause cancer.

The level of alpha emitters in the City’s groundwater and supplemental supplies always tested below the MCL of 15 pCi/L as well as below the MCLG of zero during 2022 – 2024. The Arcadia Water Treatment Plant recorded ND for alpha emitters during 2022 – 2024.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 9
The standard for beta/photon emitters does not apply to the City’s groundwater and as such, is not covered by this report. The standard for beta/photon emitters does apply to supplemental water that the City received from MWD. The MWD water always tested below the beta/photon emitters MCL of 50 pCi/L, but an annual average was verified to exceed the MCLG of zero data during 2022 at Weymouth. Beta/photon emitter readings for both MWD supplies for this period ranged from ND (Detection Limit for Purposes of Reporting or DLR was 4 pCi/L) to a high of 7 pCi/L in the water coming from MWD’s Weymouth Treatment Plant during 2022. The annual averages ranged from ND to 6 pCi/L for the Jensen and Weymouth supplies respectively, for the period covered by this report.

The level of combined radium in the City’s groundwater and supplemental supplies always tested below the MCL of 5 pCi/L during 2022 – 2024, however, in 2023, one detection of radium-228 was found at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant. Combined radium levels measured to 1.23 pCi/L, exceeding the MCLG. No detections of combined radium were reported for MWD imported water from Weymouth and Jensen plant.

The BATs for these radionuclides are similar to those for Uranium, which includes RO.

The City’s Arcadia Water Treatment Plant is achieving some reduction of these radionuclides from the City’s groundwater supply. BATs are designed for treatment to achieve compliance with the corresponding MCL only, and not PHGs, so the addition of RO softening, considered a BAT for these other radionuclides, did not achieve reduction to below the MCLGs in all cases. Further treatment to reduce other radionuclides at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant is neither practical, nor feasible. Thus, the analysis for treatment of the MWD supplies is the same as for Uranium and no recommendations for further action are advised.
• Hexavalent Chromium (Chromium VI)
The PHG for Chromium VI was established in 2011 as 0.02 ppb, however, an MCL was more recently adopted in October 2024 as 10 ppb. Therefore, an average of the City’s water sources is compared to the DLR (0.1 ppb) and used for reporting purposes.

Chromium is an odorless and tasteless metallic element. It is found naturally in rocks, plants and can also be produced by industrial processes. The most common types of chromium found in natural waters in the environment are Chromium III and Chromium VI. Total chromium is the sum of Chromium III and Chromium VI. Chromium III and Chromium VI are covered together under the total Chromium MCL because these forms of chromium can convert back and forth in water depending on environmental conditions.

Chromium III is an essential human dietary element and naturally occurs in many vegetables, fruits, grains and yeast. Chromium VI also occurs naturally in the environment from the erosion of natural chromium deposits from rocks and can also be released in the environment from industrial processes via storage leaks, discharges and improper disposal practices.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 10
Total Chromium and Chromium VI were below the MCL in all of the City’s water sources at all times, but exceeded the PHG for chromium VI at least once during the period covered in this report. Supplemental water from the Jensen and Weymouth Treatment Plants had no detection of Chromium or Chromium VI during this reporting period.

The City’s single well not treated by the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant, Santa Monica Well #1, had one instance of Chromium VI levels above the PHG in 2022 at 1.7 ppb.

Chromium VI is known to be a potent carcinogen when inhaled. It was found to also cause cancer in laboratory mice and rats when exposed through drinking water.

OEHHA has determined that the numerical cancer risk for Chromium VI above the PHG level is 1x10-6, or one additional theoretical cancer cases in one million people drinking two liters of water a day for 70 years.

The recommended technologies for Chromium VI removal are weak base anion exchange resin or reverse osmosis technology. The City’s Arcadia Water Treatment Plant is achieving some reduction of Chromium VI from the City’s groundwater supply.

BATs are designed for treatment to achieve compliance with the corresponding MCL only, and not PHGs, so the addition of RO softening, considered a BAT for Chromium VI, did not achieve reduction to below the PHG in all cases. Further treatment to reduce Chromium VI at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant is neither practical, nor feasible.

Thus, no recommendations for further action are advised for Arcadia Water Treatment Plant. The cost estimate provided for treatment of Uranium at Santa Monica Well #1 applies for Chromium VI along with the same recommendation that such treatment is neither practical or feasible.
• Fluoride
The PHG for Fluoride is 1 mg/L as of 1997. The MCL is 2 mg/L. Fluoride is a natural occurring element found in natural deposits, which enters groundwater through erosion.

It is commonly found as an additive in drinking water supplies as a public health measure to prevent tooth decay. The main concern is mild dental fluorosis (discoloration of teeth) in children and adults at the 2 mg/L MCL and higher levels.

Fluoride, in addition to being naturally found at levels close to 0.3 mg/L in Santa Monica groundwater sources, is raised to a target level of 0.7 mg/L with a control range of 0.6 mg/L to 1.2 mg/L throughout the distribution system. The only exceedance of the fluoride PHG in the City’s system occurred at Santa Monica Well #1 in 2023 with the highest analyzer reading at 1.10 mg/L. The fluoride MCL was never exceeded during this reporting period.

City water is actively fluoridated to increase the natural occurring levels that are below the PHG due in part to existing RO softening that removes fluoride. As such, no BAT’s are recommended beyond operator-controlled adjustments to the active dosing at Arcadia Water Treatment Plant and Santa Monica Well #1 where dosing takes place before entry into the distribution system. Imported supplemental MWD water is also

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 11
difficult to control and for that reason, City fluoride dosing may exceed the PHG, but not the control range or MCL. As such, no recommendations for further action are advised.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1,4-Dioxane
No MCL, MCLG, or PHG exists for 1,4-Dioxane, and as such, is not a requirement for this report. However, DDW has a Notification Level (NL) for 1,4-Dioxane, which was lowered to 0.001 mg/l in 2010. As reported to City Council in 2002, the City’s Olympic Wells (Santa Monica Wells 3&4) were found to have 1,4-Dioxane above the NL. The City was advised by DDW in 2002 that it was acceptable to continue the use of these wells as long as the level remained less than 100 times the NL. However, the City recently completed the new Olympic Advanced Water Treatment Facility that utilizes Ultraviolet Advanced Oxidation to target 1,4-Dioxane and other contaminants. The target reduction is well below the NL of 0.001 mg/l.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION
The drinking water quality of the City of Santa Monica meets all SWRCB/Division of Drinking Water and USEPA drinking water standards set to protect public health. The City’s Arcadia Water Treatment Plant is achieving further reduction of many of the constituents identified in this report from the City’s groundwater supply. To further reduce the levels of these constituents that are already significantly below the established health-based MCL would typically require that additional costly treatment processes be constructed. The effectiveness of the additional costly treatment processes to provide any significant reductions in constituent levels at these already low values below the MCL and in some cases, laboratory detection levels, is uncertain. The health protection benefits of these further hypothetical reductions are not clear and may not be quantifiable. Therefore, no action is proposed at this time.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
No MCL, MCLG, or PHG exists for 1,4-Dioxane, and as such, is not a requirement for this report. However, DDW has a NL for 1,4-Dioxane, which was lowered to 0.001 mg/l in 2010. As reported to City Council in 2002, the City’s Olympic Wells (Santa Monica Wells 3&4) were found to have 1,4-Dioxane above the NL. The City was advised by DDW in 2002 that it was acceptable to continue the use of these wells as long as the level remained less than 100 times the NL. However, the City recently began the operation of the new Olympic Advanced Water Treatment Facility that utilizes Ultraviolet Advanced Oxidation to target 1,4-Dioxane and other contaminants. The target reduction is well below the NL of 0.001 mg/l.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Water Resources Division
June 2025 Page 12
EXHIBITS:

A. California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b)
B. List of Regulated Constituents with MCLs, PHGs or MCLGs C. Numerical Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports.

Prepared by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Feb 2025 D. Tables excerpted from Annual Water Quality Reports for 2022 - 2024 E. Cost Estimates for Treatment Technologies
F. Acronyms

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Exhibit A
Health and Safety Code
Section 116470 (b)
(b) On or before July 1, 1998, and every three years thereafter, public water systems serving more than 10,000 service connections that detect one or more contaminants in drinking water that exceed the applicable public health goal, shall prepare a brief written report in plain language that does all of the following:
(1) Identifies each contaminant detected in drinking water that exceeds the applicable public health goal.
(2) Discloses the numerical public health risk, determined by the office, associated with the maximum contaminant level for each contaminant identified in paragraph (1) and the numerical public health risk determined by the office associated with the public health goal for that contaminant.
(3) Identifies the category of risk to public health, including, but not limited to, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and acute toxicity, associated with exposure to the contaminant in drinking water, and includes a brief plainly worded description of these terms.
(4) Describes the best available technology, if any is then available on a commercial basis, to remove the contaminant or reduce the concentration of the contaminant. The public water system may, solely at its own discretion, briefly describe actions that have been taken on its own, or by other entities, to prevent the introduction of the contaminant into drinking water supplies.
(5) Estimates the aggregate cost and the cost per customer of utilizing the technology described in paragraph (4), if any, to reduce the concentration of that contaminant in drinking water to a level at or below the public health goal. (6) Briefly describes what action, if any, the local water purveyor intends to take to reduce the concentration of the contaminant in public drinking water supplies and the basis for that decision.
(c) Public water systems required to prepare a report pursuant to subdivision (b) shall hold a public hearing for the purpose of accepting and responding to public comment on the report. Public water systems may hold the public hearing as part of any regularly scheduled meeting.
(d) The department shall not require a public water system to take any action to reduce or eliminate any exceedance of a public health goal.
(e) Enforcement of this section does not require the department to amend a public water system’s operating permit.

Page 1 of 2 ends

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) (f) Pending adoption of a public health goal by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 116365, and in lieu thereof, public water systems shall use the national maximum contaminant level goal adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the corresponding contaminant for purposes of complying with the notice and hearing requirements of this section.
(g) This section is intended to provide an alternative form for the federally required consumer confidence report as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 300g-3(c).

Page 2 of 2 ends

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) 1 MCLs, DLRs, and PHGs for Regulated Drinking Water
Contaminants
(Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L), unless
otherwise noted.)
Last Update: November 2024
This table includes:

California's maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) Detection limits for purposes of reporting (DLRs)
Public health goals (PHGs) from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)
The PHGs for NDMA, PFOA and PFOS (which are not yet regulated in California) are included at the bottom of this table.

The Federal MCLs for PFOA and PFOS are also listed at the end of this table.

Regulated Contaminant MCL DLR PHG Date of PHG
Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64431—Inorganic Chemicals Aluminum 1 0.05 0.6 2001
Antimony 0.006 0.006 0.001 2016
Arsenic 0.010 0.002 0.000004 2004
Asbestos (MFL = million fibers per liter;
for fibers >10 microns long) 7 MFL 0.2 MFL 7 MFL 2003
Barium 1 0.1 2 2003
Beryllium 0.004 0.001 0.001 2003
Cadmium 0.005 0.001 0.00004 2006
Chromium, Total - OEHHA withdrew the

0.0025-mg/L PHG 0.05 0.01 withdrawn Nov. 2001 1999
Chromium, Hexavalent - 0.01-mg/L MCL
& 0.001-mg/L DLR repealed September
2017
-- -- 0.00002 2011
Cyanide 0.15 0.1 0.15 1997
Fluoride 2 0.1 1 1997
Mercury (inorganic) 0.002 0.001 0.0012 1999
(rev2005)*
Nickel 0.1 0.01 0.012 2001
Nitrate (as nitrogen, N) 10 as N 0.4
45 as
NO3 (=10
as N)
2018
Nitrite (as N) 1 as N 0.4 1 as N 2018
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) 10 as N -- 10 as N 2018
Perchlorate 0.006 0.004 0.001 2015
Selenium 0.05 0.005 0.03 2010

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) 2 Thallium 0.002 0.001 0.0001 1999
(rev2004)
Copper and Lead, 22 CCR §64672.3
Values referred to as MCLs for lead and copper are not actually MCLs; instead, they are called "Action Levels" under the lead and copper rule
Copper 1.3 0.05 0.3 2008
Lead 0.015 0.005 0.0002 2009
Radionuclides with MCLs in 22 CCR §64441 and §64443—Radioactivity [units are picocuries per liter (pCi/L), unless otherwise stated; n/a = not applicable] Gross alpha particle activity - OEHHA
concluded in 2003 that a PHG was not
practical
15 3 none n/a
Gross beta particle activity - OEHHA
concluded in 2003 that a PHG was not
practical
4 mrem/yr 4 none n/a
Radium-226 -- 1 0.05 2006
Radium-228 -- 1 0.019 2006
Radium-226 + Radium-228 5 -- -- --
Strontium-90 8 2 0.35 2006
Tritium 20,000 1,000 400 2006
Uranium 20 1 0.43 2001
Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64444—Organic Chemicals
(a) Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
Benzene 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 2001
Carbon tetrachloride 0.0005 0.0005 0.0001 2000
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 0.0005 0.6 1997
(rev2009)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB) 0.005 0.0005 0.006 1997
1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) 0.005 0.0005 0.003 2003
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 1999
(rev2005)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) 0.006 0.0005 0.01 1999
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 0.0005 0.013 2018
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 0.0005 0.05 2018
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 0.005 0.0005 0.004 2000 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 0.0005 0.0005 1999
1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 1999
(rev2006)
Ethylbenzene 0.3 0.0005 0.3 1997
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) 0.013 0.003 0.013 1999 Monochlorobenzene 0.07 0.0005 0.07 2014
Styrene 0.1 0.0005 0.0005 2010
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 0.0005 0.0001 2003

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) 3 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 0.005 0.0005 0.00006 2001
Toluene 0.15 0.0005 0.15 1999
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 0.0005 0.005 1999
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) 0.2 0.0005 1 2006
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA) 0.005 0.0005 0.0003 2006 Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.005 0.0005 0.0017 2009
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 0.15 0.005 1.3 2014
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane
(Freon 113) 1.2 0.01 4
1997
(rev2011)
Vinyl chloride 0.0005 0.0005 0.00005 2000
Xylenes 1.75 0.0005 1.8 1997
(b) Non-Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs)
Alachlor 0.002 0.001 0.004 1997
Atrazine 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 1999
Bentazon 0.018 0.002 0.2 1999
(rev2009)
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0002 0.0001 0.000007 2010
Carbofuran 0.018 0.005 0.0007 2016
Chlordane 0.0001 0.0001 0.00003 1997
(rev2006)
Dalapon 0.2 0.01 0.79 1997
(rev2009)
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 0.0002 0.00001 0.000003 2020 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) 0.07 0.01 0.02 2009 Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 0.4 0.005 0.2 2003
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) 0.004 0.003 0.012 1997 Dinoseb 0.007 0.002 0.014 1997
(rev2010)
Diquat 0.02 0.004 0.006 2016
Endothal 0.1 0.045 0.094 2014
Endrin 0.002 0.0001 0.0003 2016
Ethylene dibromide (EDB) 0.00005 0.00002 0.00001 2003
Glyphosate 0.7 0.025 0.9 2007
Heptachlor 0.00001 0.00001 0.000008 1999
Heptachlor epoxide 0.00001 0.00001 0.000006 1999
Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 0.0005 0.00003 2003
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 0.001 0.002 2014
Lindane 0.0002 0.0002 0.000032 1999
(rev2005)
Methoxychlor 0.03 0.01 0.00009 2010
Molinate 0.02 0.002 0.001 2008
Oxamyl 0.05 0.02 0.026 2009
Pentachlorophenol 0.001 0.0002 0.0003 2009
Picloram 0.5 0.001 0.166 2016
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 0.0005 0.0005 0.00009 2007

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) 4 Simazine 0.004 0.001 0.004 2001
Thiobencarb 0.07 0.001 0.042 2016
Toxaphene 0.003 0.001 0.00003 2003
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.000005 0.000005 0.0000007 2009 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) 3x10-8 5x10-9 5x10-11 2010
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 0.001 0.003 2014
Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64533—Disinfection Byproducts Total Trihalomethanes 0.080 -- -- --
Bromodichloromethane -- 0.0010 0.00006 2020
Bromoform -- 0.0010 0.0005 2020
Chloroform -- 0.0010 0.0004 2020
Dibromochloromethane -- 0.0010 0.0001 2020
Haloacetic Acids (five) (HAA5) 0.060 -- -- --
Monochloroacetic Acid -- 0.0020 -- --
Dichloroacetic Adic -- 0.0010 -- --
Trichloroacetic Acid -- 0.0010 -- --
Monobromoacetic Acid -- 0.0010 -- --
Dibromoacetic Acid -- 0.0010 -- --
Bromate 0.010 0.0050** 0.0001 2009
Chlorite 1.0 0.020 0.05 2009
Chemicals with PHGs established in response to DDW requests. These are not currently regulated drinking water contaminants.

N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) -- -- 0.000003 2006
*OEHHA's review of this chemical during the year indicated (rev20XX) resulted in no change in the PHG.
**The DLR for Bromate is 0.0010 mg/L for analysis performed using EPA Method 317.0 Revision 2.0, 321.8, or 326.0.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) 5 Chemicals with PHGs established in response to DDW requests. These are not currently regulated drinking water contaminants.***
Regulated Contaminant MCL DLR PHG Date of PHG
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) -- -- 0.000003 2006
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)*** -- -- 0.000000
07 2024
Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)*** -- -- 0.000001 2024 ***PFOA and PFOS have US EPA MCLGs and MCLs.

PFOA – MCLG is zero. MCL is 4 ng/L.

PFOS – MCLG is zero. MCL is 4 ng/L.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 1
Health Risk Information for
Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports
Prepared by
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
California Environmental Protection Agency
February 2025
NEW for the 2025 Report: New in this document are newly established Public Health Goals (PHGs) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and five haloacetic acids: monochloroacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, and dibromoacetic acid.

Background: Under the Calderon-Sher Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (the Act), public water systems with more than 10,000 service connections are required to prepare a report every three years for contaminants that exceed their respective PHGs. 1 This document contains health risk information on drinking water contaminants to assist public water systems in preparing these reports. A PHG is the concentration of a contaminant in drinking water that poses no significant health risk if consumed for a lifetime. PHGs are developed and published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) using current risk assessment principles, practices and methods.
2 The water system’s report is required to identify the health risk category (e.g., carcinogenicity or neurotoxicity) associated with exposure to each contaminant in drinking water that has a PHG and to include a brief, plainly worded description of these risks. The report is also required to disclose the numerical public health risk, if available, associated with the California Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and with the PHG for each contaminant. This health risk information document is prepared by OEHHA every three years to assist the water systems in providing the required information in their reports.
1 Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b)
2 Health and Safety Code Section 116365

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 2
Numerical health risks: Table 1 presents health risk categories and cancer risk values for chemical contaminants in drinking water that have PHGs.

The Act requires that OEHHA publish PHGs based on health risk assessments using the most current scientific methods. As defined in statute, PHGs for non-carcinogenic chemicals in drinking water are set at a concentration “at which no known or anticipated adverse health effects will occur, with an adequate margin of safety.” For carcinogens, PHGs are set at a concentration that “does not pose any significant risk to health.” PHGs provide one basis for revising MCLs, along with cost and technological feasibility.

OEHHA has been publishing PHGs since 1997 and the entire list published to date is shown in Table 1.

Table 2 presents health risk information for contaminants that do not have PHGs but have state or federal regulatory standards. The Act requires that, for chemical contaminants with California MCLs that do not yet have PHGs, water utilities use the federal Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for the purpose of complying with the requirement of public notification. MCLGs, like PHGs, are strictly health based and include a margin of safety. One difference, however, is that the MCLGs for carcinogens are set at zero because the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) assumes there is no absolutely safe level of exposure to such chemicals. PHGs, on the other hand, are set at a level considered to pose no significant risk of cancer; this is usually no more than a one-in-one-million excess cancer risk (1×10-6) level for a lifetime of exposure. In Table 2, the cancer risks shown are based on the US EPA’s evaluations.

For more information on health risks: The adverse health effects for each chemical with a PHG are summarized in a PHG technical support document. These documents are available on the OEHHA website (https://oehha.ca.gov/water/public-health-goalsphgs).

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 3
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Alachlor carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.004 NA5,6 0.002 NA
Aluminum neurotoxicity and
immunotoxicity
(harms the nervous and
immune systems)

0.6 NA 1 NA
Antimony hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.001 NA 0.006 NA
Arsenic carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000004
(4×10-6)
1×10-6
(one per
million)

0.01 2.5×10-3
(2.5 per
thousand)
Asbestos carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
7 MFL7
(fibers >10
microns in
length)
1×10-6 7 MFL
(fibers >10
microns in
length)
1×10-6
(one per
million)
Atrazine carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00015 1×10-6 0.001 7×10-6
(seven per
million)
Barium cardiovascular toxicity
(causes high blood
pressure)
2 NA 1 NA
1 Based on the OEHHA PHG technical support document unless otherwise specified. The categories are the hazard traits defined by OEHHA for California’s Toxics Information Clearinghouse (online at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/risk-assessment//gcregtext011912.pdf). 2 mg/L = milligrams per liter of water, equivalent to parts per million (ppm) 3 Cancer Risk = Upper bound estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk may be lower or zero. 1×10-6 means one excess cancer case per million people exposed. 4 MCL = maximum contaminant level.
5 NA = not applicable. Cancer risk cannot be calculated. 6 The PHG for alachlor is based on a threshold model of carcinogenesis and is set at a level that is believed to be without any significant cancer risk to individuals exposed to the chemical over a lifetime. 7 MFL = million fibers per liter of water.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 4
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Bentazon hepatotoxicity and
digestive system toxicity
(harms the liver,
intestine, and causes
body weight effects8)

0.2 NA 0.018 NA
Benzene carcinogenicity
(causes leukemia)

0.00015 1×10-6 0.001 7×10-6
(seven per
million)
Benzo[a]pyrene carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000007
(7×10-6)
1×10-6 0.0002 3×10-5
(three per
hundred
thousand)
Beryllium digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach or
intestine)

0.001 NA 0.004 NA
Bromate carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0001 1×10-6 0.01 1×10-4
(one per
ten
thousand)
Cadmium nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.00004 NA 0.005 NA
Carbofuran reproductive toxicity
(harms the testis)

0.0007 NA 0.018 NA
Carbon
tetrachloride
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0001 1×10-6 0.0005 5×10-6
(five per
million)
8 Body weight effects are an indicator of general toxicity in animal studies.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 5
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Chlordane carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00003 1×10-6 0.0001 3×10-6
(three per
million)
Chlorite hematotoxicity
(causes anemia)
neurotoxicity
(causes neurobehavioral
effects)

0.05 NA 1 NA
Chromium,
hexavalent
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00002 1×10-6 0.010 5×10-4 (five
per ten
thousand)
Copper digestive system toxicity
(causes nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea)

0.3 NA 1.3 (AL9) NA
Cyanide neurotoxicity
(damages nerves)
endocrine toxicity
(affects the thyroid)

0.15 NA 0.15 NA
Dalapon nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.79 NA 0.2 NA
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
adipate (DEHA)
developmental toxicity
(disrupts development)

0.2 NA 0.4 NA
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
(DEHP)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.012 1×10-6 0.004 3×10-7
(three per
ten million)
9 AL = action level. The action levels for copper and lead refer to a concentration measured at the tap. Much of the copper and lead in drinking water is derived from household plumbing (The Lead and Copper Rule, Title 22, California Code of Regulations [CCR] section 64672.3).

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 6
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane
(DBCP)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000003
(3x10-6)
1×10-6 0.0002 7×10-5
(seven per
hundred
thousand)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
(o-DCB)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.6 NA 0.6 NA
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
(p-DCB)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.006 1×10-6 0.005 8×10-7
(eight per
ten million)
1,1-Dichloroethane
(1,1-DCA)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.003 1×10-6 0.005 2×10-6
(two per
million)
1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0004 1×10-6 0.0005 1×10-6
(one per
million)
1,1-Dichloroethylene
(1,1-DCE)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.01 NA 0.006 NA
1,2-Dichloroethylene, cisnephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.013 NA 0.006 NA
1,2-Dichloroethylene, transimmunotoxicity
(harms the immune
system)

0.05 NA 0.01 NA
Dichloromethane
(methylene
chloride)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.004 1×10-6 0.005 1×10-6
(one per
million)

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 7
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid (2,4-D)
hepatotoxicity and
nephrotoxicity
(harms the liver and
kidney)

0.02 NA 0.07 NA
1,2-Dichloropropane
(propylene
dichloride)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0005 1×10-6 0.005 1×10-5
(one per
hundred
thousand)
1,3-Dichloropropene
(Telone II)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0002 1×10-6 0.0005 2×10-6
(two per
million)
Dinoseb reproductive toxicity
(harms the uterus and
testis)

0.014 NA 0.007 NA
Diquat ocular toxicity
(harms the eye)
developmental toxicity
(causes malformation)

0.006 NA 0.02 NA
Endothall digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach or
intestine)

0.094 NA 0.1 NA
Endrin neurotoxicity
(causes convulsions)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.0003 NA 0.002 NA
Ethylbenzene
(phenylethane)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.3 NA 0.3 NA
Ethylene
dibromide (1,2-
Dibromoethane)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00001 1×10-6 0.00005 5×10-6
(five per
million)

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 8
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Fluoride musculoskeletal toxicity
(causes tooth mottling)
1 NA 2 NA
Glyphosate nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.9 NA 0.7 NA
Haloacetic acids:
dibromoacetic
acid
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00003 1×10-6 0.06* 2×10-3
(two per
thousand)10
Haloacetic acids:
dichloroacetic
acid
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0002 1×10-6 0.06* 3×10-4
(three per
ten
thousand)11
Haloacetic acids:
monobromoacetic acid
musculoskeletal toxicity
(causes muscular
degeneration)

0.025 NA 0.06* NA
Haloacetic acids:
monochloroacetic acid
general toxicity
(causes body and organ
weight changes8)

0.053 NA 0.06* NA
Haloacetic acids:
trichloroacetic
acid
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0001 1×10-6 0.06* 6×10-4
(six per ten
thousand)12
Heptachlor carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000008
(8×10-6)
1×10-6 0.00001 1×10-6
(one per
million)
* For total haloacetic acids (the sum of dibromoacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid, and trichloroacetic acid). There are no MCLs for individual haloacetic acids. 10 Based on 0.060 mg/L dibromoacetic acid; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other haloacetic acids in a particular sample. 11 Based on 0.060 mg/L dichloroacetic acid; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other haloacetic acids in a particular sample. 12 Based on 0.060 mg/L trichloroacetic acid; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other haloacetic acids in a particular sample.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 9
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Heptachlor
epoxide
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000006
(6×10-6)
1×10-6 0.00001 2×10-6
(two per
million)
Hexachlorobenzenecarcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00003 1×10-6 0.001 3×10-5
(three per
hundred
thousand)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
(HCCPD)
digestive system toxicity
(causes stomach
lesions)

0.002 NA 0.05 NA
Lead developmental
neurotoxicity
(causes neurobehavioral
effects in children)
cardiovascular toxicity
(causes high blood
pressure)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0002 <1×10-6
(PHG is
not based
on this
effect)

0.015
(AL9)
2×10-6
(two per
million)
Lindane
(γ-BHC)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000032 1×10-6 0.0002 6×10-6
(six per
million)
Mercury
(inorganic)
nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.0012 NA 0.002 NA
Methoxychlor endocrine toxicity
(causes hormone
effects)

0.00009 NA 0.03 NA
Methyl tertiarybutyl ether
(MTBE)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.013 1×10-6 0.013 1×10-6
(one per
million)

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 10
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Molinate carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.001 1×10-6 0.02 2×10-5
(two per
hundred
thousand)
Monochlorobenzene
(chlorobenzene)
nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.07 NA 0.07 NA
Nickel developmental toxicity
(causes increased
neonatal deaths)

0.012 NA 0.1 NA
Nitrate hematotoxicity
(causes
methemoglobinemia)
45 as
nitrate
NA 10 as
nitrogen
(=45 as
nitrate)
NA
Nitrite hematotoxicity
(causes
methemoglobinemia)
3 as
nitrite
NA 1 as
nitrogen
(=3 as
nitrite)
NA
Nitrate and
Nitrite
hematotoxicity
(causes
methemoglobinemia)
10 as
nitrogen13
NA 10 as
nitrogen
NA
N-nitrosodimethyl-amine
(NDMA)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000003
(3×10-6)
1×10-6 none NA
Oxamyl general toxicity
(causes body weight
effects)

0.026 NA 0.05 NA
13 The joint nitrate/nitrite PHG of 10 mg/L (10 ppm, expressed as nitrogen) does not replace the individual values, and the maximum contribution from nitrite should not exceed 1 mg/L nitrite-nitrogen.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 11
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0003 1×10-6 0.001 3×10-6
(three per
million)
Perchlorate endocrine toxicity
(affects the thyroid)
developmental toxicity
(causes neurodevelopmental deficits)

0.001 NA 0.006 NA
Perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid
(PFOS)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
1×10-6 1×10-6 NA NA
Perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
7×10-9 1×10-6 NA NA
Picloram hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.166 NA 0.5 NA
Polychlorinated
biphenyls
(PCBs)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00009 1×10-6 0.0005 6×10-6
(six per
million)
Radium-226 carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.05 pCi/L 1×10-6 5 pCi/L
(combined
Ra226+228)
1×10-4
(one per
ten
thousand)
Radium-228 carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.019 pCi/L 1×10-6 5 pCi/L
(combined
Ra226+228)
3×10-4
(three per
ten
thousand)
Selenium integumentary toxicity
(causes hair loss and
nail damage)

0.03 NA 0.05 NA

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 12
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Silvex (2,4,5-TP) hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.003 NA 0.05 NA
Simazine general toxicity
(causes body weight
effects)

0.004 NA 0.004 NA
Strontium-90 carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.35 pCi/L 1×10-6 8 pCi/L 2×10-5
(two per
hundred
thousand)
Styrene
(vinylbenzene)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0005 1×10-6 0.1 2×10-4
(two per
ten
thousand)
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0001 1×10-6 0.001 1×10-5
(one per
hundred
thousand)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (TCDD, or
dioxin)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
5×10-11 1×10-6 3×10-8 6×10-4
(six per ten
thousand)
Tetrachloroethylene
(perchloroethylene, or
PCE)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00006 1×10-6 0.005 8×10-5
(eight per
hundred
thousand)
Thallium integumentary toxicity
(causes hair loss)

0.0001 NA 0.002 NA

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 13
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Thiobencarb general toxicity
(causes body weight
effects)
hematotoxicity
(affects red blood cells)

0.042 NA 0.07 NA
Toluene
(methylbenzene)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
endocrine toxicity
(harms the thymus)

0.15 NA 0.15 NA
Toxaphene carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00003 1×10-6 0.003 1×10-4
(one per
ten
thousand)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzeneendocrine toxicity
(harms adrenal glands)

0.005 NA 0.005 NA
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
neurotoxicity
(harms the nervous
system),
reproductive toxicity
(causes fewer offspring)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
hematotoxicity
(causes blood effects)
1 NA 0.2 NA
1,1,2-Trichloroethanecarcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0003 1x10-6 0.005 2×10-5
(two per
hundred
thousand)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0017 1×10-6 0.005 3×10-6
(three per
million)

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 14
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freon 11)
accelerated mortality
(increase in early death)

1.3 NA 0.15 NA
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
(1,2,3-TCP)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0000007
(7×10-7)
1x10-6 0.000005
(5×10-6)
7×10-6
(seven per
million)
1,1,2-Trichloro1,2,2-trifluoroethane
(Freon 113)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
4 NA 1.2 NA
Trihalomethanes:

Bromodichloromethane
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00006 1x10-6 0.080# 1.3×10-3
(1.3 per
thousand)14
Trihalomethanes:

Bromoform
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0005 1x10-6 0.080# 2×10-4
(two per ten
thousand)15
Trihalomethanes:

Chloroform
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0004 1x10-6 0.080# 2×10-4
(two per ten
thousand)16
# For total trihalomethanes (the sum of bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane). There are no MCLs for individual trihalomethanes. 14 Based on 0.080 mg/L bromodichloromethane; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample.
15 Based on 0.080 mg/L bromoform; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample.
16 Based on 0.080 mg/L chloroform; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 15
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Trihalomethanes:

Dibromochloromethane
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0001 1x10-6 0.080# 8×10-4
(eight
per ten
thousand)17
Tritium carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
400 pCi/L 1x10-6 20,000
pCi/L
5×10-5
(five per
hundred
thousand)
Uranium carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.43 pCi/L 1×10-6 20 pCi/L 5×10-5
(five per
hundred
thousand)
Vinyl chloride carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00005 1×10-6 0.0005 1×10-5
(one per
hundred
thousand)
Xylene neurotoxicity
(affects the senses,
mood, and motor
control)

1.8 (single
isomer or
sum of
isomers)
NA 1.75 (single
isomer or
sum of
isomers)
NA
# For total trihalomethanes (the sum of bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane). There are no MCLs for individual trihalomethanes. 17 Based on 0.080 mg/L dibromochloromethane; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 16
Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals without California Public Health Goals
Chemical Health Risk Category1
US EPA
MCLG2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
at the
MCLG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Disinfection byproducts (DBPs)
Chloramines acute toxicity
(causes irritation)
digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach)
hematotoxicity
(causes anemia)
45,6 NA7 none NA
Chlorine acute toxicity
(causes irritation)
digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach)
45,6 NA none NA
Chlorine dioxide hematotoxicity
(causes anemia)
neurotoxicity
(harms the nervous
system)

0.85,6 NA none NA
Radionuclides
1 Health risk category based on the US EPA MCLG document or California MCL document unless otherwise specified.
2 MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal established by US EPA. 3 Cancer Risk = Upper estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk may be lower or zero. 1×10-6 means one excess cancer case per million people exposed. 4 California MCL = maximum contaminant level established by California. 5 Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal, or MRDLG. 6 The federal Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL), or highest level of disinfectant allowed in drinking water, is the same value for this chemical. 7 NA = not available.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1352 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 17
Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals without California Public Health Goals
Chemical Health Risk Category1
US EPA
MCLG2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
at the
MCLG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Gross alpha
particles8
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0 (210Po
included)
0 15 pCi/L9
(includes
radium but
not radon
and
uranium)
up to 1x10-3
(for 210Po,
the most
potent alpha
emitter)
Beta particles
and photon
emitters8
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0 (
210Pb
included)
0 50 pCi/L
(judged
equiv. to 4
mrem/yr)
up to 2x10-3
(for 210Pb,
the most
potent betaemitter)
8 MCLs for gross alpha and beta particles are screening standards for a group of radionuclides.

Corresponding PHGs were not developed for gross alpha and beta particles. See the OEHHA memoranda discussing the cancer risks at these MCLs at
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/reports/grossab.html. 9 pCi/L = picocuries per liter of water.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1353 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
Summary of Results for Primary Drinking Water Standards for 2022 PDWS = Primary Drinking Water Standards are MCLs, MRDLs, and Treatment Techniques TTs for contaminants that affect health ,along with their monitoring and reporting requirements.

PHG = Public Health Goal is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level is the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water.

MRDLG = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal is the level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

MRDL = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level is the highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.

LRAA = Locational Running Annual Average. The running annual average is based on monitoring location.

AL = Regulatory Action Level is the concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow.

NA = Not Applicable
ND = Monitored for but Not Detected
NS = No Standard
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units - used to measure cloudiness of drinking water.

TT = Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. ppb = parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (µg/l) ppm = parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l) pCi/L = picocuries per liter
* = secondary standard
** = Highest Running Average (RAA)
(a) = SM Well#1 is pumped into a transmission line, is blended with Imported Surface Water and enters the system at 19th St. & Idaho Ave.
(b) = The City is not required to test for every parameter each year. If indicated, data is from a previous year. (c) = The E. coli MCL is based on routine and repeat samples testing positive for coliforms and/or E. coli or failure to collect required repeat samples. Fecal Coliform/E. Coli constitutes an acute MCL violation. No Level 1 Assessments or MCL violations occurred for 2022.
(d) = The MCL has been replaced with a treatment technique requiring agencies to optimize corrosion control.

Results given are from first draw, at-the-tap monitoring performed every three years.

FOR ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY QUESTIONS CONTACT THE LEAD CHEMIST, CLEMENT DO, AT (310) 434-2672.

LOCAL IMPORTED IMPORTED Dates Meets MAJOR SOURCES
PHG/ State WELL WATER SM WELL #1(a) SURFACE WATER SURFACE WATER Sampled Std IN DRINKING WATER PARAMETER [MCLG]/ MCL/ Arcadia Plant Jensen Plant Weymouth Plant if other {MRDLG} {MRDL} Average Range Average Range Average Range Average Range than 2022(b) Clarity
Maximum Turbidity (NTU) NS 95% < 0.3 NA NA NA NA 0.05 100% ≤ 0.3 0.04 100% ≤ 0.3 Y Soil runoff Microbiological
Total Coliform Bacteria [0] 5% City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Naturally present in the environment (% positive samples/month)
Fecal Coliform/E. Coli [0] (c) City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Human and animal fecal waste Organic Chemical
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) (ppb) 13 13(5*) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Leaking underground storage tanks Trichloroethylene (ppb) 1.7 5 0.6 ND - 1.0 ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from metal degreasing sites Disinfection
Byproducts & Residuals
Total Trihalomethanes (ppb) NS 80 City-wide LR41A: 16 Range: 4 - 55 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Haloacetic Acids (ppb) NS 60 City-wide LRAA: 2 Range: ND - 9 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Total Chlorine/Chloramines (ppm) {4} {4} City-wide Average: 1.2 Range: 0.2 - 2.4 Y Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment Bromate (ppb) 0.1 10 NA NA NA NA 7.2** ND - 15 ND** ND - 7.6 Y By-product of drinking water ozonation Total Organic Carbon (ppm) N/A TT NA NA NA NA 1.5** 1.0 - 1.4 2.4** 1.7 - 2.6 Inorganic Chemicals
Aluminum (ppm) 0.6 1 (0.2*) ND ND ND ND 0.06** ND - 0.08 0.16** 0.06 - 0.24 Y Erosion of natural deposits; used in water treatment process Arsenic (ppb) 0.004 10 ND ND ND ND 2.4 2.4 ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Barium (ppm) 2 1 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 ND ND 0.11 0.11 Y Discharge from oil and metal industries; Erosion of natural deposits Chromium (ppb) [100] 50 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from steel and pulp mills; natural deposits erosion Chromium 6 (ppb) 0.02 NS 0.2 0.2 1.7 1.7 ND ND ND ND Y Naturally occuring; industrial waste discharge Copper (d) (ppm) 0.3 AL=1.3 (1.0*) Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Fluoride After Treatment (ppm) 1 2 Y Water additive for dental health Lead (d) (ppb) 0.2 AL=15 Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Nitrate (as N) (ppm) 10 10 0.5 ND - 0.7 3.1 3.0 - 3.4 0.9 0.9 ND ND Y Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from sewage; erosion of natural deposits Perchlorate (ppb) 1 6 ND ND 0.7 0.7 ND ND ND ND Y Industrial waste discharge Radionuclides
Alpha emitters (pCi/L) [0] 15 8.1 8.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Beta/photon emitters (pCi/L) [0] 50 NA NA NA NA ND ND - 5 6 4 - 7 Y Decay of natural and man-made deposits Combined Radium (pCi/L) [0] 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Uranium (pCi/L) 0.43 20 1.9 1.6 - 2.2 0.8 0.8 ND ND - 3 2 1 - 3 Y Erosion of natural deposits Citywide Highest Monthly 1.60% Range: ND - 1.60% No violations Citywide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples
Citywide LRAA: 23.4 Range: 6.3 - 54.1
Citywide LRAA: 2.8 Range: ND - 4.3
Citywide Average: 1.84 Range: ND - 3.10
Citywide, 90th percentile: 0.20 0 sites out of 35 exceeded the AL Control Range: 0.6 - 1.2 Citywide Range: 0.6 - 0.9
Citywide, 90th percentile: 2.10 0 sites out of 35 exceeded the AL (d)

PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (MANDATORY HEALTH-RELATED STANDARDS)

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS FOR 2023 PDWS = Primary Drinking Water Standards are MCLs,
MRDLs, and Treatment Techniques TTs for contaminants
that affect health ,along with their monitoring and
reporting requirements.

PHG = Public Health Goal is the level of a contaminant
in drinking water below which there is no known or
expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no
known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level is the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary
MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is
economically and technologically feasible. Secondary
MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water.

MRDLG = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal is the level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not
reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

LRAA = Locational Running Annual Average. The running annual average is based on monitoring location.

AL = Regulatory Action Level is the concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow.

NA = Not Applicable
ND = Monitored for but Not Detected
NS = No Standard
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units - used to measure cloudiness of drinking water.

TT = Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.
ppb = parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (µg/l) ppm = parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l) pCi/L = picocuries per liter
* = secondary standard
** = Highest Running Average (RAA)
***= Santa Monica Well #1 offline in 2023 for maintenance purposes. For reporting purposes this information is from 2021 or 2022.
(a) = SM Well#1 is pumped into a transmission line, is blended with Imported Surface Water and enters the system
at 19th St. & Idaho Ave.
(b) = The City is not required to test for every parameter each year. If indicated, data is from a previous year.
(c) = The E. coli MCL is based on routine and repeat samples testing positive for coliforms and/or E. coli or failure to collect required repeat samples. Fecal Coliform/E.

Coli constitutes an acute MCL violation. No Level 1
Assessments or MCL violations occurred for 2023.
(d) = The MCL has been replaced with a treatment technique requiring agencies to optimize corrosion control. Results given are from first draw, at-the-tap monitoring performed every three years.

PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (MANDATORY HEALTH-RELATED STANDARDS) Clarity
Maximum Turbidity (NTU) NS 95% < 0.3 NA NA NA NA 0.07 100% ≤ 0.3 0.06 100% ≤ 0.3 Y Soil runoff Microbiological
Total Coliform Bacteria [0] 5% City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Naturally present in the environment (% positive samples/month)
Fecal Coliform/E. Coli [0] (c) City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Human and animal fecal waste Organic Chemical
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) (ppb) 13 13(5*) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Leaking underground storage tanks Trichloroethylene (ppb) 1.7 5 0.5 03 - 0.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from metal degreasing sites 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) (ng/L) 0.7 5 ND ND ND*** ND*** ND ND ND ND 2021*** Y Discharge and leaching from industrial/agricultural, and hazardous waste sites used as cleaning solvent for paint, varnish, and degreasing; pesticide by produc Disinfection
Byproducts & Residuals
Total Trihalomethanes (ppb) NS 80 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Haloacetic Acids (ppb) NS 60 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Total Chlorine/Chloramines (ppm) {4} {4} Y Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment Bromate (ppb) 0.1 10 NA NA NA NA 7.6** ND - 14 2.4** ND - 12 Y By-product of drinking water ozonation Total Organic Carbon (ppm) N/A TT NA NA NA NA 2.1** 1.4 - 2.6 2.4** 1.8 - 3.0 Inorganic Chemicals
Aluminum (ppb) 600 1000 (200*) ND ND ND*** ND*** ND** ND - 83 115** ND - 71 2022*** Y Erosion of natural deposits; used in water treatment process Arsenic (ppb) 0.004 10 ND ND ND*** ND*** ND ND ND ND 2022*** Y Erosion of natural deposits Barium (ppm) 2 1 0.01 0.01 0.04*** 0.04*** ND ND ND ND 2022*** Y Discharge from oil and metal industries; Erosion of natural deposits Chromium (ppb) [100] 50 ND ND ND*** ND*** ND ND ND ND 2022*** Y Discharge from steel and pulp mills; natural deposits erosion Chromium 6 (ppb) 0.02 NS 0.1 0.1 1.7*** 1.7*** ND ND ND ND 2022*** Y Naturally occuring; industrial waste discharge Copper (d) (ppm) 0.3 AL=1.3 (1.0*) 2022 Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Fluoride After Treatment (ppm) 1 2 Y Water additive for dental health Lead (d) (ppb) 0.2 AL=15 2022 Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Nitrate (as N) (ppm) 10 10 0.3 0.2 - 0.3 2.8 2.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 Y Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from sewage; erosion of natural deposits Perchlorate (ppb) 1 6 ND ND 0.7*** 0.7*** ND ND ND ND 2022*** Y Industrial waste discharge Radionuclides
Alpha emitters (pCi/L) [0] 15 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Beta/photon emitters (pCi/L) [0] 50 NA NA NA NA ND ND ND ND - 6 Y Decay of natural and man-made deposits Combined Radium (pCi/L) [0] 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Uranium (pCi/L) 0.43 20 1.2 1.2 0.8*** 0.8*** 2 2 - 3 ND ND - 3 2022*** Y Erosion of natural deposits FOR ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY QUESTIONS CONTACT THE LEAD CHEMIST, CLEMENT DO, AT (310) 434-2672.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS FOR 2024 PDWS = Primary Drinking Water Standards are MCLs,
MRDLs, and Treatment Techniques TTs for contaminants
that affect health, along with their monitoring and
reporting requirements.

PHG = Public Health Goal is the level of a contaminant
in drinking water below which there is no known or
expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no
known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level is the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is
economically and technologically feasible. Secondary
MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water.

MRDLG = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal is the level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not
reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

LRAA = Locational Running Annual Average. The running annual average is based on monitoring location.

AL = Regulatory Action Level is the concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow.

NA = Not Applicable
ND = Monitored for but Not Detected
NS = No Standard
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units - used to measure cloudiness of drinking water.

TT = Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.
ppb = parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (µg/l) ppm = parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l) pCi/L = picocuries per liter
* = Secondary Standard
** = Highest Running Average (RAA)
*** = Santa Monica Well #1 offline in 2023 for maintenance purposes. For reporting purposes, this information is from 2021, 2022, or 2023 (prior to offline status).
(a) = SM Well#1 is pumped into a transmission line, is blended with Imported Surface Water and enters the system
at 19th St. & Idaho Ave.
(b) = The City is not required to test for every parameter each year. If indicated, data is from a previous year.
(c) = The E. coli MCL is based on routine and repeat samples testing positive for coliforms and/or E. coli or failure to collect required repeat samples. Fecal Coliform/E.

Coli constitutes an acute MCL violation. No Level 1
Assessments or MCL violations occurred for 2024.
(d) = The MCL has been replaced with a treatment technique requiring agencies to optimize corrosion control. Results given are from first draw, at-the-tap monitoring performed every three years.

PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (MANDATORY HEALTH-RELATED STANDARDS) FOR ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY QUESTIONS CONTACT THE LEAD CHEMIST, CLEMENT DO, AT (310) 434-2672.

Citywide Highest Monthly: 0% Positive Samples Range: ND No violations Citywide LRAA: 20.9 Range: 6.9 - 50.2
Citywide LRAA: 3.8 Range: ND - 17.5
Citywide Average: 2.00 Range: ND - 3.5
Clarity
Maximum Turbidity (NTU) NS 95% < 0.3 NA NA NA NA ND 100% ≤ 0.3 ND 100% ≤ 0.3 Y Soil runoff Microbiological
Total Coliform Bacteria [0] 5% Y Naturally present in the environment (% positive samples/month)
Fecal Coliform/E. Coli [0] (c) Y Human and animal fecal waste Organic Chemical
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) (ppb) 13 13(5*) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Leaking underground storage tanks Trichloroethylene (ppb) 1.7 5 0.7 0.5 - 0.9 ND*** ND*** ND ND ND ND 2023*** Y Discharge from metal degreasing sites 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) (ng/L) 0.7 5 ND ND ND*** ND*** ND ND ND ND 2021*** Y Discharge and leaching from industrial/agricultural, and hazardous waste sites used as cleaning solvent for paint, varnish, and degreasing; pesticide by product Disinfection
Byproducts & Residuals
Total Trihalomethanes (ppb) NS 80 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Haloacetic Acids (ppb) NS 60 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Total Chlorine/Chloramines (ppm) {4} {4} Y Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment Bromate (ppb) 0.1 10 NA NA NA NA 3.1** ND - 5.4 2.0** ND - 9.2 Y By-product of drinking water ozonation Total Organic Carbon (ppm) N/A TT NA NA NA NA 2.4** 2.0 - 2.5 2.4** 2.1 - 2.6 Inorganic Chemicals
Aluminum (ppb) 600 1000 (200*) ND ND ND*** ND*** 62** 52 - 91 93** ND - 150 2022*** Y Erosion of natural deposits; used in water treatment process Arsenic (ppb) 0.004 10 ND ND ND*** ND*** ND ND ND ND 2022*** Y Erosion of natural deposits Barium (ppm) 2 1 ND ND 0.04*** 0.04*** ND ND 124 124 2022*** Y Discharge from oil and metal industries; Erosion of natural deposits Chromium (ppb) [100] 50 ND ND ND*** ND*** ND ND ND ND 2022*** Y Discharge from steel and pulp mills; natural deposits erosion Chromium 6 (ppb) 0.02 NS 0.1 0.1 1.7*** 1.7*** ND ND ND ND 2022*** Y Naturally occuring; industrial waste discharge Copper (d) (ppm) 0.3 AL=1.3 (1.0*) 2022 Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Fluoride After Treatment (ppm) 1 2 Y Water additive for dental health Lead (d) (ppb) 0.2 AL=15 2022 Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Nitrate (as N) (ppm) 10 10 0.2 ND - 0.2 2.8 2.8 0.5 0.5 ND ND Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from sewage; erosion of natural deposits Perchlorate (ppb) 1 6 ND ND 0.7*** 0.7*** ND ND ND ND 2022*** Y Industrial waste discharge Radionuclides
Alpha emitters (pCi/L) [0] 15 ND ND ND*** ND*** ND ND ND ND 2022*** Y Erosion of natural deposits Beta/photon emitters (pCi/L) [0] 50 NA NA NA NA ND ND ND ND - 5 Y Decay of natural and man-made deposits Combined Radium (pCi/L) [0] 5 ND ND ND*** ND*** ND ND ND ND 2023*** Y Erosion of natural deposits Uranium (pCi/L) 0.43 20 1.6 1.1 -2.1 ND*** ND*** 2 2 - 3 ND ND - 3 2022*** Y Erosion of natural deposits For additional water quality questions, contact lead chemist, Clement Do at (310) 434-2672.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: 2025 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (7157 : Report on Water Quality and

Page 1 of 2 ends

Santa Monica City CouncilOctober 14, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
October 14, 2025