Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, October 14, 2025 (part 1 of 8)

City of Santa Monica
City Council Meeting
AGENDA

LANA NEGRETE
MAYOR

ELLIS RASKIN CAROLINE TOROSIS

COUNCILMEMBER MAYOR PRO TEM

DAN HALL BARRY SNELL

COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER

JESSE ZWICK NATALYA ZERNITSKAYA

COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER
OLIVER C. CHI

CITY MANAGER

HEIDI VON TONGELN

INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY
NIKIMA S. NEWSOME

CITY CLERK

STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR THAT PROMOTE CIVILITY AT ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS:
• Treat everyone courteously; • Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive
public process, and tools for forging sound decisions
• Hate has no place in Santa Monica. The City opposes
abusive or threatening hate speech, intolerance, or
dehumanization, and supports basic civil respect and
human decency.
• Listen to others respectfully;
• Exercise self-control;
• Give open-minded consideration
to all viewpoints;
• Focus on the issues and avoid
personalizing debate;
Regular meetings are broadcast live on CityTV cable channel 16 and on the internet at santamonica.gov. Cable television re-broadcasts air on Thursday and Saturday at 11:30 AM. The agenda will air on CityTV on Saturday and Sunday at 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and on Monday and Tuesday at 12:30 PM and 6:00 PM.

City of Santa Monica Generated: 10/20/2025 10:18 AM Page 2

RULES OF ORDER FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS (Resolution No.11663(CCS))

WAYS TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT
If you are interested in providing public comment at a City Council meeting, there are several ways to participate:
(1) Written public comment. In lieu of oral public comment, the public is strongly encouraged to submit written public comment on agenda items via email to [email protected]. For written public comment submitted by 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting, best efforts shall be made to have them available online for viewing. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments.
(2) Oral public comment.
- In-person: Persons wishing to address the City Council regarding items on the agenda must be present and submit their name and address (optional) to the City Clerk before the public comment section is opened for that item or before the public hearing is opened where one is required by law. Register to speak at the Speaker Kiosk prior to the meeting. - Telephone: Persons wishing to address the Council by telephone must register at santamonica.gov/public-comment no later than 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting. Showing electronic presentation materials are not permitted when commenting by telephone.

Oral public comment from any one individual is limited to a total of 6 minutes per City Council meeting, with a maximum of 2 minutes per agenda item if speaking on multiple items. A member of the public may allocate time between items in one-minute increments up to 2 minutes and those requesting to speak on only one agendized item for the meeting may speak for up to 4 minutes on that one item. Except for noticed public hearings or quasi-judicial items, if more than 25 speakers are registered to speak during a public input section, the amount of time shall be reduced to 1 minute per speaker during that section.

Except for the author of the request, public comment on 15-items are limited to 1 minute.

Levine Act Disclosure. Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. 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. Information regarding the Levine Act can be found here or you can contact the FPPC.

ORDER OF BUSINESS (may not be changed except by majority vote of the City Council.)

1. General Public Input
(Members of the public may address the City Council
only on items not on the agenda, but within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the City and on Special
Agenda Items.)

2. Special Agenda Items (Commendations and
Proclamations presented).

3. Public Comment for Consent Calendar and Closed
Sessions Only.

4. Consent Calendar (All items considered in one
motion unless removed by a City Councilmember for
discussion. No public comment is permitted on
second readings.)

5. Closed Sessions.

6. Public Comment on remaining Agenda Items

7. Study Session.

8. Continued Items.

9. Administrative Proceedings.

10. Ordinances:
• 1
st Reading
• 2
nd Reading (No public comment is
permitted on second readings.)

11. Staff Administrative Item.

12. Public Hearings.

13. Reports of Boards and Commissions.

14. Resolutions.

15. Written Communications (Other than
Reports of Commission and Officers.)

16. Councilmember Discussion Items.

Agendas and reports are accessible on the City's webpage at smgov.net/council/agendas. They are also available at the City Clerk's Office and in alternate formats upon request. For a free email subscription to the City Council Agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or [email protected].

Si desea comunicarse con alguien en español, llame a nuestra oficina al (310) 458-8211 y pida hablar con Esterlina Lugo.

City of Santa Monica Generated: 10/20/2025 10:18 AM Page 3

AGENDAS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

REGULAR MEETING
.CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
1685 MAIN STREET, ROOM 250, SANTA

MONICA, CA AND, TELECONFERENCE IN

SAN RAFAEL, CA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2025
MEETING BEGINS AT 5:30 PM
The Santa Monica City Council Meeting will be held on Monday, October 20, 2025, at 5:30 P.M. (PDT) in the City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401, and at a teleconference site located at Four Points Sheraton San Rafael Hotel, 1010 Northgate Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903, where a Councilmember will be present and participating via teleconference.

HOW TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT BY TELEPHONE
Persons wishing to address the City Council by telephone must register at santamonica.gov/public-comment no later than 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting.

Donation of time and showing electronic presentation materials are not permitted when commenting by telephone.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ROLL CALL
City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) The City of Santa Monica is located on the land of Tovangaar. With great respect, the City acknowledges the Gabrieleño/Tongva as the First People of this ancestral and unceded territory of Kuruvungna, a village that we know as Santa Monica. We honor their elders, past and present, and the Gabrieleño descendants who are part of the Gabrieleño /Tongva tribes.

We recognize that these peoples are still here, and as settlers and kuyam (guests), we recognize our responsibility and obligation to care for their land in partnership with them.

The City of Santa Monica commits to work in partnership with the Gabrieleño/Tongva people to uplift their voices and visibility on their ancestral land.

LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS / PROCEDURAL

MOTIONS
City of Santa Monica Generated: 10/20/2025 10:18 AM Page 4

1. GENERAL PUBLIC INPUT AND COMMENT ON SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS (For regular meetings, public comment is permitted on Special Agenda Items and items not on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the agenda, including issues raised under this agenda item. For special meetings, public input is limited to scheduled Special Agenda Items only.)

1.A. Written Comments

2. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS

2.A. Proclamation: United Against Hate Week

2.B. Proclamation: Breast Cancer Awareness Month

2.C. Proclamation: Code Enforcement Week

3. PUBLIC INPUT (ITEMS UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR AND CLOSED SESSION ONLY)

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items will be considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion. In accordance with Charter section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present dissents. No public discussion is permitted on ordinances for second reading and adoption.)

4.A. City Council - Regular Meeting - Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM

4.B. Approval of Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting - Sep 30, 2025 5:30 PM

4.C. City Council - Special Meeting - Sep 30, 2025 5:35 PM

4.D. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Application for Grant Funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for the Riviera Reservoir Seismic Retrofit Project - Item Pulled at the Request of Staff. 10/14/2025
City of Santa Monica Generated: 10/20/2025 10:18 AM Page 5 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the application for grant funds in the amount of approximately $8,209,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the Riviera Reservoir Seismic Retrofit Project in the Public Works Department – Water Resources Division; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to apply for the grant, accept the grant, if awarded, and accept all grant renewals, if awarded.

4.E. Adoption of a Resolution on the SB 1205 Annual Fire Inspection Report Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Adopt a resolution acknowledging receipt of a report on the status of statemandated annual fire inspections in the City of Santa Monica pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4.

4.F. Award RFP #436 for Bus Stop Real-Time Signs to Papercast North America Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt findings of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15301, Section 15302, Section 15303, and Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

2. Award RFP# 436 to Papercast North America, a Florida-based company, for the manufacture and installation of bus stop real-time information digital signs and lighting units

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Papercast North America, in an amount not to exceed $1,333,550 (including a $66,677 contingency) for five (5) years for a total amount not to exceed $1,400,227 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

4. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

4.G. Approval of Change Orders with Life-Assist, Inc. and Henry Schein to Increase Total Amounts for Purchase Orders for Medical Supplies for the Fire Department
City of Santa Monica Generated: 10/20/2025 10:18 AM Page 6 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a change order to purchase order #22600660 in the amount of $35,000 with Life-Assist, Inc. for medical supplies and equipment for the Fire Department. This would result in a revised purchase order total not to exceed $117,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and

3. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a change order to purchase order #22600661 in the amount of $45,000 with Henry Schein for medical supplies and equipment for the Fire Department. This would result in a revised purchase order total not to exceed $135,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

4.H. Adoption of Affordable Housing Production Program Fee Resolutions Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution increasing the Affordable Housing Unit Base Fee by 2.7 percent for new market-rate apartments and condominiums (Attachment A).

2. Adopt the attached Resolution increasing the Affordable Housing Unit Development Cost by 2.7 percent (Attachment B).

3. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

4.I. Award RFP #447 to Leone Solutions Group for Marketing and Communications Services for the Department of Transportation
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant environmental effects pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award RFP# 447 to Leone Solutions Group, a Los Angeles-based firm, to provide as-needed graphic design, marketing, and communications services for the Department of Transportation, and;

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a two-year agreement with Leone Solutions Group, with up to three one-year renewal options at the City’s sole discretion, for a total amount not to exceed $416,665 over five years, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

4.J. Approval of Professional Services Agreement with P&A Administrative Services, Inc. for Administration Services to Support City Employee and Retiree Benefit Plans
City of Santa Monica Generated: 10/20/2025 10:18 AM Page 7 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council

1. Adopt a finding of no significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award RFP to P&A Administrative Services, Inc. for the administration of the City’s Flexible Spending Account, Dependent Care Account, Section 125 Cafeteria Plan, COBRA, and Retiree Billing for the Human Resources Department;

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with P&A Administrative Services, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $230,000 (including a 15% contingency) for a total amount of $230,000 over a five-year period, with two one-year renewal options with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

4.K. Adoption of a Resolution Establishing the 2026 Council Meeting Dates Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached resolution establishing the 2026 Council regular meeting calendar; and

2. Adopt a finding that the resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

4.L. Approval of Ninth Contract Modification with Carahsoft/Granicus for Electronic Agenda Management Services
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a ninth modification to Agreement 9784 (CCS) in the amount of $41,740 with Carahsoft/Granicus for an agenda management software system for the Records and Election Services Department. This will result in a 14-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $324,290 budget approval.

4.M. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.04.155 and Adding Section 4.04.405 to Provide Private Remedies When a Dog Maintained in Violation of the Leash Law Bites Another Animal or Person, and to Require Dog Owners to Share Information After Dog Bites Causing Injury to Persons or Animals
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

4.N. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2025 California Building, Residential, Electrical, Energy, Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire, Green Building, Wildland-Urban Interface, Historical, and Existing Building Standards Codes and Local Amendments to the 2025 California Building Standards Code City of Santa Monica Generated: 10/20/2025 10:18 AM Page 8 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

4.O. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Official Districting Map for the Parcel Located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

5. CLOSED SESSIONS

5.A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):

Judith Delgado v. City; LASC # 24STCV08614

5.B. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):

Alejandra Garcia v. City; LASC # 21STCV07940

CITY MANAGER REPORT

TRAVEL ANNOUNCEMENT AND MAYOR'S HIGHLIGHT

6. PUBLIC INPUT ON REMAINING AGENDA ITEMS
. Public Input for 12-Items will be heard at the time when the Public Hearing is called.

7. STUDY SESSION
No items

8. CONTINUED ITEMS
No items

9. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
No items

10. ORDINANCES
(Public comment is permitted on ordinances for introduction and first reading. No public discussion is permitted on ordinances for second reading and adoption. In accordance with Charter section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present dissents.)
No items

11. STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
City of Santa Monica Generated: 10/20/2025 10:18 AM Page 9

11.A. Adoption of Resolution Establishing a Santa Monica Signature Events Category, Designating Santa Monica Signature Events, and Authorizing the Waiver of City Event Fees for Designated Signature Events Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effects pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Adopt the attached Resolution Establishing a Santa Monica Signature Events Category, Designating Santa Monica Signature Events, and Authorizing the Waiver of City Event Fees for Designated Signature Events.

11.B. Review and Approval of Council Discretionary Funding Policy Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Consider reforms to the allocation and distribution of its discretionary funds;

2. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

11.C. Approval of First Modification to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Revitalization Partners Group, LLC for the Civic Center Auditorium Renovation, Programming and Operation
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Provide direction regarding the Revitalization Partners Group request to extend term for the Civic ENA.

2. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

11.D. Acceptance of Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property for the Parcel Located at 2644 30th Street and Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Official Districting Map for a Portion of the Parcel Located at 2644 30th Street
Recommended Actions
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the acceptance of the attached Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property (Covenant) for the parcel located at 2644 30th Street is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, consistent with the findings set forth in the “Environmental Review” section of this Report;

2. Accept the attached Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property (Covenant) for the parcel located at 2644 30th Street.

Staff recommends that upon approval of Covenant that the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached Ordinance amending the Official Districting Map for a Portion of the Parcel Located at 2644 30th Street.

City of Santa Monica Generated: 10/20/2025 10:18 AM Page 10

12. PUBLIC HEARINGS

12.A. 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.

13. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
No items

14. RESOLUTIONS
No items

15. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OTHER THAN REPORTS OF COMMISSION AND

OFFICERS
No items

16. COUNCILMEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS

16.A. Request of the Disabilities Commission to declare Arlene Frames' seat vacant due to absenteeism and lack of communication.

16.B. Request of Mayor Negrete that the City Council consider directing the City Manager to provide Community Engagement, Zoning Clarity, and Accountability for LA County and Nonprofit Operated Housing Projects

ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and reports are accessible on the City's webpage at www.smgov.net/council/agendas. They are also available at the City Clerk's Office and in alternate formats upon request. For a free email subscription to the City Council Agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or [email protected].

Members of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the meeting by meeting by mailing them to: City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 or to [email protected]. Written comments received from the public by 12 PM on the day of the City Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to the meeting and posted online. Members of the public who submit written public comment on an agenda item may be subject to the Levine Act which requires disclosure of campaign contributions of more than $500 to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months.

City Hall and the Council Chambers are wheelchair accessible. If you require any special City of Santa Monica Generated: 10/20/2025 10:18 AM Page 11 disability related accommodations to either attend or provide public testimony at a Council meeting (i.e. sign language interpreting, access to an amplified sound system, remote option, etc.), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or TDD: (310) 917- 6626 or via email at [email protected] at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Best efforts shall be made to accommodate requests received after the 72-hour deadline. In the case of special meetings, requests should be submitted as early as possible, but no later than noon the day of the special Council meeting.

Si desea comunicarse con alguien en español, llame a nuestra oficina al (310) 458-8211 y pida hablar con Esterlina Lugo.

Santa Monica Blue Bus Lines #1, #2, #3, #5, #9 and the EXPO Line serve City Hall.

Parking is available on Main Street, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).

City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 14, 2025
Agenda Item: 1.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Written Comments
Prepared By: Mitchell Kois,
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

1.A
Packet Pg. 12
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Sean Ahaus <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 5:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Cc: Sean Ahaus
Subject: California Roadhouse, Inc. - Opposing “Labor Peace Agreement” & Opposing “Right to Recall”

EXTERNAL
October 8th, 2025
Re: Opposing “Labor Peace Agreement” & Opposing “Right to Recall” Hello Mayor, City Council Members & City Manager Chi,
I’m Sean Ahaus, the CEO & co-owner of Vito Restaurant here in Santa Monica. And I’m also CEO & coowner of California Roadhouse, which has a proposal before the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, to open a locally owned & operated restaurant & live music venue on the pier, where Rusty’s Surf Ranch was located.

I’m asking for your help to create job growth in Santa Monica by opposing “Labor Peace Agreements” & by opposing a “Right to Recall”, for the following reasons:
"Labor Peace Agreements on city owned property" – Oppose Please take a moment to put yourself in the shoes of potential investors who may be considering investing in creating jobs within Santa Monica.

Would you invest your savings in a restaurant on the Santa Monica Pier, if council passed a Labor Peace Agreement there?
All my local investors, in California Roadhouse, have reached out to me, saying if council passes a Labor Peace Agreement, then they’ll be pulling their investment offers from The California Roadhouse, unless the city also greatly reduces their asking rent. That would likely end our ability to create about 30 to 50 well-paying jobs in Santa Monica.

Perhaps some may think a frozen yogurt store, coffee house or franchise could be an ideal alternative tenant on city property. Such businesses are likely to create much fewer & lower-paid jobs, creating only about 12 to 20 jobs per location, with most employees earning only $20 to $24 per hour. And they’re less likely to enhance a guest’s experience within our city.

The California Roadhouse on the other hand, will create more & much higher paying jobs, creating about 30 to 50 fun, well-paid jobs, with most team members earning substantially better wages of about $25 to $35 per hour.

Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) 2 America’s small businesses have created 62% of all private-sector job growth since 2009 & 90% of U.S. restaurants are small businesses.

Passing Labor Peace Agreements might appear like a good idea at first glance. However, government encouraging unions to go after representing employees of small family-owned businesses directly harms job growth, increases citywide vacancies, reduces rents, harms our economic growth & harms our city’s financial viability to tackle other pressing issues.

Labor Peace Agreements can’t be pro-employees, and can’t be pro-economic growth, if the unions & the Labor Peace Agreements become driving factors in directly reducing available, well-paying jobs. And the added time and costs to implement, and then to defend Labor Peace Agreements is likely to be very costly for the city & our taxpayers.

Under a city mandated Labor Peace Agreement, employer’s 1st Amendment Rights would be unlawfully restricted as employers would be prohibited from sharing truthful & vital information with others.

For example, if the city passed a Labor Peace Agreement ordinance yesterday & I had signed a Labor Peace Agreement with Unite Here! Local 11 this morning, then I could be prohibited from expressing most of the facts and opinions I have openly shared with you today. As a majority of what I just said may be considered a violation of a government & union mandated “agreement of remaining neutral during a union organizing campaign”. After all, how could I be considered neutral on something I clearly & openly oppose?
I was born in Santa Monica and I’m proud to say, I’m a liberal democrat, that believes in employee’s rights to join a union of their own choosing, free of any government-imposed coercion or undue influence. However, I oppose Labor Peace Agreements imposed on employees and imposed on small businesses by government, because they hurt employees & employers alike, by hurting job growth & our economy. They reduce employees’ options, and they limit free speech. “Right to Recall” – Oppose
How can we be successful at providing the best service & experiences for our guests, if city council were to pass a “Right to Recall”, mandating we hire employees that previously worked at our location, even if our experience and expertise tell us someone else is more qualified to provide better service for our guests?
The quality of the service our business provides is directly related to our business’s economic success.

The success of our business is directly linked to the success of our employees and in turn, to the economic success of our community.

Government shouldn’t dictate who employers hire. And they shouldn’t require businesses to hire less qualified team members, just because someone previously worked in a building where a business operates.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sean Ahaus
Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) 3 California Roadhouse, Inc.
(213) 364-6251
Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) 4 Mitchell Kois
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 3:08 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Heidi von Tongeln; councilmtgitems
Subject: inquiry about costs to have the City of Santa Monica endorse products in advertising

EXTERNAL
How much does it cost to use the Santa Monica city seal in an ad? Is there a minimum timeslot that needs to be reserved to film in city hall, or is it just a by the minute rate? Should payment be made to the city, or directly to any councilmembers who agree to be in the ad? Does it cost extra to book the mayor?
I think it's great that the city is being creative in plugging its huge budget shortfall! Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) 5 Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) 6 Mitchell Kois
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 7:09 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: Who Believes and Trusts Santa Monica's Mayor and City Council?

EXTERNAL
What's your take on information we were provided by City Staff and a City Councilmember? Mayor Lana Negrete and Councilmembers Caroline Torosis, Dan Hall. Jesse Zwick and Barry Snell were informed of this project months ago. They underestimated voter opposition. THE CITY AND STATE HAVE BROKEN THEIR OWN LAWS REGARDING NOTIFICATION AND HEARINGS. Housing mentally ill has become "big business" funded by Taxpayers. Instead of Santa Monica and LA caring for these people in proper centralized medical facilities, we pay crooked private operators to do so with NO accountability. Our elected leaders claim they are addressing the problem, but occupants at the proposed Ocean Avenue location will be free to roam the parks, public spaces and commit crimes.

SMPD tell us they are called to OCEAN AVENUE, Reed and Tongva Parks an average of 8 times a day. Residents and city park employees step on needles, are attacked, and are in harm's way. Guaranteed higher-than-average rental income for the property owner, with reimbursed expenses from Taxpayers. Within 5 years the building will be so damaged the owners will turn the site into dense high rise housing or a hotel.

Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPtjJrHApIo/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/UlFPCSsA2fA
Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) 7 Mitchell Kois
From: Elizabeth Boren <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 12:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Letter of Support for JSX at SMO

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Councilperson,
Honorable Mayor Lana Negrete
Mayor Pro Tempore Caroline Torosis
Members of Santa Monica City Council
Members of Santa Monica Airport Commission
Mr. Oliver Chi, City Manager
Mr. Stelios Makrides, Airport Director
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tempore Torosis, City Council, Airport Commission, City Manager, and Airport Director:

As a proud resident of Santa Monica, I am wriƟng to express my enthusiasƟc support for JSX’s proposed operaƟons at Santa Monica Airport (SMO). JSX has commiƩed to flying quiet, environmentally responsible and efficient aircraŌ during regular airport hours. Their proposal for a direct lease with the city represents a smart, community-first soluƟon that benefits all of us.

JSX can help reduce traffic emissions by eliminaƟng the need to drive to distant airports. More 2,200 Santa Monica residents, including myself, already drive further just to fly JSX from other airports. Not only will this improve the quality of life for residents, but this will also help support local businesses by aƩracƟng inbound tourists. With major global events like the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics on the horizon, this kind of accessible, Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) 8 environmentally responsible air travel will be more valuable than ever, and the revenue the city generates from JSX’s operaƟons can be reinvested into vital community programs across Santa Monica.

As your consƟtuent, I urge you to act in the best interest of our city and approve a direct lease for JSX to operate at SMO.

Thank you for your leadership and commitment to our community.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Boren
1014 Broadway Apt 344
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) 9 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 10:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NG on SB 70

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
This bill should not pass, very disturbing to the neighborhood.

Fred Aleander
Santa Monica resident
Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) 10 Mitchell Kois
From: ci dixon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 2:12 PM
To: Parking; Transportation Planning; Public Works Permits Cc: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Request for Temporary Parking Permits – Oct 16 Public Meeting at Mt. Olive Lutheran Church

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Transportation and Public Works Teams, I am reaching out regarding parking accommodations for an upcoming public meeting hosted by the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health on Thursday, October 16 at 6:00 p.m. The event will be held at Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, 1343 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica 90405.

After visiting the site, I noted that the church parking lot has approximately 72 spaces. We anticipate 100–120 additional attendees arriving by car. There is no parking permitted on Ocean Park Boulevard, and all adjacent streets are preferential permit zones, which makes it difficult to accommodate overflow parking.

We are encouraging attendees to carpool, rideshare, or use Waymo, but we would still like to explore whether the City can assist by issuing temporary parking permits or a short-term event accommodation for this date and location.

Could you please advise on the most appropriate permit or process to:

1. Secure temporary on-street parking near 1343 Ocean Park Blvd; and/or

2. Arrange temporary guest parking permissions for the surrounding residential streets? Given the event date is approaching, we would be grateful for your expedited guidance or referral to the correct permitting contact.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance in helping this important community meeting run smoothly.

Warm regards,
Caroline Dixon
Santa Monica Resident
Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Paul Deason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 10:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Santa Monica Forward

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica Forward does NOT represent the best interests of residents. They represent capital. Their agenda isn’t inclusion, equity, or sustainability as they claim — it’s deregulated development for profit.

Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) 2 Mitchell Kois
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:27 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: Tuesday October 14, 2025

EXTERNAL
"Can we all just get along?" REALLY??? Should we tolerate open drug use and sales in our public spaces? Asked in 1992, and more than 30 years later by Santa Monica Mayor Lana Negrete and Councilmember Barry Snell, two of Santa Monica's elected standouts. Do you think we need more Police on the streets before we invite more tourists?
Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPy7BJRAl59/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/eP9fVRjX0T4
Item 1
October 14, 2025
Item 1
October 14, 2025

1.A.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7361 : Written Comments) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 14, 2025
Agenda Item: 2.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Special Agenda Items
Subject: Proclamation: United Against Hate Week
Prepared By: Kennisha Williams, Administrative Staff Assistant Approved Forwarded to Council

2.A
Packet Pg. 25
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 14, 2025
Agenda Item: 2.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Special Agenda Items
Subject: Proclamation: Breast Cancer Awareness Month
Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council

2.B
Packet Pg. 26
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 14, 2025
Agenda Item: 2.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Special Agenda Items
Subject: Proclamation: Code Enforcement Week
Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council

2.C
Packet Pg. 27
1 July 29, 2025
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 29, 2025
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Negrete at 5:34 p.m., on Tuesday, July 29, 2025, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Lana Negrete
Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis
Councilmember Jesse Zwick
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: City Manager Oliver Chi
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
City Clerk Nikima S. Newsome
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:34 p.m., with all members present. Councilmember Zernitskaya led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
The City of Santa Monica is located on the land of Tovangaar. With great respect, the City acknowledges the Gabrieleño/Tongva as the First People of this ancestral and unceded territory of Kuruvungna, a village that we know as Santa Monica. We honor their elders, past and present, and the Gabrieleño descendants who are part of the Gabrieleño /Tongva tribes.

We recognize that these peoples are still here, and as settlers and kuyam (guests), we recognize our responsibility and obligation to care for their land in partnership with them. The City of Santa Monica commits to work in partnership with the Gabrieleño/Tongva people to uplift their voices and visibility on their ancestral land.

The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Raskin.

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is

4.A
Packet Pg. 28
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 July 29, 2025
required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official.

Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well.

The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.

No Councilmembers recused from any items pursuant to the Levine Act.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

GENERAL PUBLIC

COMMENT AND

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS:

Members of the public Teal Greene, Joe Holsher, Elysse Champion, Georgia Fay, Graham Wooley, Arshayan Desai, Reagan Whalen, Eden Tishbi, Jack Turtletaub, Ian Brown, Rufus F., Elizabeth Sorgen, Jerry Rubin, Harvey Eder, Sheila Morovati, Denise Barton, Dylan Songen, Jonah Breslau, Dayquan Moeller, Johnathan Foster, Gonzalo Hernandez, Flor Garcia, Alberto Hernandez, Susan McCorry, Jim Conn, Michael Dimartino, John Berry, Ruta Soltanpour, Michael Fuimori, Karen La Cava, Jane VelezMitchell, and Christina Ku commented on various local issues.

No members of the public commented on Special Agenda items.

PROCLAMATIONS/

COMMENDATIONS/

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS

2.A. Commendation: Community Wellbeing Leaders, was presented.

2.B. Proclamation: Disability Pride Month, was presented.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Councilmember Snell, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to suspend the Council rules to hear the special meeting agenda item at this time. The motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote with all Councilmembers present. The special Council meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. at which time the regular Council meeting was reconvened.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

CONSENT CALENDAR

AND CLOSED SESSION
ONLY:

No members of the public commented on Closed Session items.

Members of the public Greg Amato, Juan Matute, Jacqueline Hinton, Justin Hinton, Connor Webb, and Pam O’Connor commented on consent calendar items.

CONSENT CALENDAR: All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

At the request of Councilmember Hall, Item 4.A. was removed from the Consent Calendar.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya,

4.A
Packet Pg. 29
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 July 29, 2025
to approve the Consent Calendar except for Item 4.A., reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

CHARGING

INFRASTRUCTURE

PROJECT

4.B. Approval of Professional Services Agreement No. 11738 (CCS) with Stantec Architecture, Inc. for the Santa Monica Department of Transportation Charging Infrastructure Project, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemptions pursuant to Section 15262 and Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11738 (CCS) with Stantec Architecture, Inc. for professional design services for the Santa Monica Department of Transportation Charging Infrastructure Project for the Public Works Department in an amount not to exceed $1,150,000 (including a 10% contingency) for a five-year term with two additional one-year renewal options with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250(b).

WATER RESERVOIR

UPGRADES &

IMPROVEMENTS

4.C. Authorization of Third Modification to Agreement No. 11475 (CCS) with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. and First Modification to Agreement No. 11547 (CCS) with Arcadis U.S., Inc. and for the Water Reservoir Upgrades, Seismic and Site Security Improvements, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemptions pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a third modification to Agreement No. 11475 (CCS) in the amount of $646,847 (including no additional contingency) with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for additional design services for the Water Reservoir Upgrade and Improvement Project for the Public Works Department. This will result in an amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $4,336,139, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval;

4.A
Packet Pg. 30
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 July 29, 2025

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Agreement No. 11547 (CCS) in the amount of $318,402 (including no additional contingency) with Arcadis U.S., Inc for additional design services for the Site Security Project for the Public Works Department. This will result in an amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $1,163,402, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and

4. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

PAVEMENT

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

4.D. Award RFP No. SP2754 to International Cybernetics Company, LP, dba IMS Infrastructure Management Services, for the Pavement Management System Update, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt findings of Categorical Exemptions pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies), of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award RFP#SP2754 to International Cybernetics Company, LP, doing business as (dba) IMS Infrastructure Management Services, to provide professional consulting services to conduct a citywide pavement condition survey and update the City's Pavement Management System (PMS) for the Public Works Department; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11739 (CCS) with International Cybernetics Company, LP, doing business as (dba) IMS Infrastructure Management Services, in an amount not to exceed $130,456 (including a 10% contingency) for a five-year term, with one renewal option of up to five years in the amount of $103,909 (including 10% contingency) for a total amount not to exceed $234,365 over a ten-year period, with the future year funding contingent on council budget approval.

VEHICLE REPAIRS 4.E. Authorize the First Modification to Agreement No. 11752 (CCS), formerly #4755, with Westway Auto Body and Paint Shop, Inc., for Vehicle Body Work, Repairs, Painting, and New Vehicle Upfitting, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and a finding of no significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

4.A
Packet Pg. 31
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 July 29, 2025

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Agreement No. 11762 (CCS), formerly agreement #4755, to extend the term and in the amount of $200,000 (includes a $19,000 contingency) with Westway Auto Body and Paint Shop, Inc. (Westway), for vehicle body work, repairs, painting and new vehicle upfitting for the Public Works Department. This will result in a sixyear amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $450,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

FILM PERMITS 4.F. Award RFP #439 for Film Permit Coordination, Permit Process Improvement, Marketing/Outreach, Notification, Monitoring, and Complaint Referral Services on Public Property, the Public Right-ofWay, and in City Facilities, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effects pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award RFP #439 Film Permit Coordination, Permit Process Improvement, Marketing/Outreach, Notification, Monitoring, and Complaint Referral Services to Film Santa Monica, a Californiabased company, to provide film permit coordination, notification, and monitoring services for filming activities on public property, the public right-of-way, and in City facilities; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11740 (CCS) with Film Santa Monica at no cost to the City over an initial term of three years with one option for renewal of two years to be exercised at the City’s sole discretion.

SERVICE DESK

SUPPORT

4.G. Approval of Third Modification of Agreement with Zones for 24x7x365 Service Desk Support, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a third modification to Agreement No. 10887 (CCS) in the amount of $226,936 with Zones, LLC (Zones) for 24x7x365 Service Desk support for the Information Services Department (ISD). This will result in a 7-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $2,215,668, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval;

2. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

4.A
Packet Pg. 32
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 July 29, 2025
WATER

CONSERVATION FUND
GRANT

4.H. Resolution No. 11684 (CCS) Authorizing the Application for Grant Funds from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Funding, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)(Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Adoption of Resolution No. 11684 (CCS) authorizing the application for grant funds in the amount of $6 million from the California Department of Parks and Recreation Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Program for the Memorial Park Expansion Project for the Public Works Department; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to apply for the grant, accept the grant, if awarded, and accept all grant renewals, if awarded.

REGIONAL FIRES

EMERGENCY

PROCLAMATION

4.I. Resolution No. 11685 (CCS) Ratifying Regional Fires Emergency Proclamation and Supplements, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). 15268
(Ministerial Projects), and 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Adoption of Resolution No. 11685 (CCS) ratifying the Executive Order issued by the Director of Emergency Services declaring the existence of a local emergency in the City of Santa Monica and the Supplements to that Order.

HOMELESSNESS

EMERGENCY

PROCLAMATION

4.J. Resolution No. 11686 (CCS) Ratifying Homelessness Emergency, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Adopt proposed Resolution No. 11686 (CCS) ratifying the 2025 Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness.

4.A
Packet Pg. 33
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 July 29, 2025

MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING

4.K. Resolution No. 11687 (CCS) Accepting Tentative Agreements 11741 (CCS), 11742 (CCS) and 11743 (CCS) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Memoranda of Understanding with the Municipal Employees Association (MEA), Supervisory Team Associates (STA), and the Administrative Team Associates (ATA), was adopted and approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15324 (Class 24 Regulations of Working Conditions) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Adoption of Resolution No. 11687 (CCS) accepting Tentative Agreements No. 11741 through 11734 (CCS) and authorizing the City Manager to execute Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the Municipal Employees Association (MEA), Supervisory Team Associates (STA), and the Administrative Team Associates (ATA);

3. Adopt the salary schedule (Attachment B); and

4. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report. (requires 5 votes)

MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDIN

4.L. Resolution No. 11688 (CCS) Accepting Tentative Agreement No. 11744 (CCS) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109 IAFF (1109), was adopted and approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15324 (Class 24 Regulations of Working Conditions) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Adoption of Resolution No. 11688 (CCS) accepting Tentative Agreement No. 11744 (CCS) and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109 IAFF (1109);

3. Adopt the salary schedule (Attachment B); and

4. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.(requires 5 votes)

COUNCIL MEETING

SCHEDULE

4.M. Resolution No. 11689 (CCS) Rescheduling Regular City Council Meeting Scheduled for November 11th to November 18th, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following:

4.A
Packet Pg. 34
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 July 29, 2025

1. Reschedule regular Council meeting scheduled for November 11, 2025, to November 18, 2025, in observance of Veterans Day, which is now an official city holiday; and

2. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant environmental effects pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

MINUTES 4.N. Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting - Jun 10, 2025 5:30 PM, were approved.

ANNUAL PAVING

PROJECT &

TRANSPORTATION

DEVELOPMENT GRANT

4.A. Award Bid SP2717 and Construction Contract No. 11737 (CCS) to Sully Miller Contracting Company for the FY 25-26 Annual Paving Project and Accept Transportation Development Act Grant, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award Bid #SP2717 to Sully Miller Contracting Company for the FY 2025-26 Annual Paving Project for the Public Works Department;

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No. 11737 (CCS) with Sully Miller Contracting Company in an amount not to exceed $7,591,163 (including a 15% contingency);

4. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the amount of $211,000 from the Los Angeles Metro Transportation
Development Act (TDA) Funds for FY 2025-26 Annual Paving Project in the Department of Transportation, and to accept all grant renewals;

5. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals; and

6. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

Questions asked and answered of staff regarding the East Pico Blvd safety plan included was there a parking study completed to understand the impacts of removing the three spots being highlighted by the businesses in the area; would it be possible to change at least one meter spot to a disability parking spot; would it be possible to implement another crosswalk to address safety concerns for pedestrians; is there a timeframe for when additional electric buses will be implemented; what were the results of the one day bus stop relocation; wouldn’t the alternative near side bus stop option create an unsafe situation with the bus merging in the middle of 33rd and Pico Blvd; what would be the timeline or cost of moving the metered parking to Urban Avenue; are there other bus stops in the city that have been relocated in this way and what were the results; what are the headways right now on Pico

4.A
Packet Pg. 35
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 July 29, 2025
Blvd; did Council approve the recommendation from the 2019 study to proceed with the eastbound bus travel lane on Pico Blvd; has that recommendation been implemented; has the idea been entertained to move the bus stop further back on the north side; was any thought given to eliminating the bus stop at the intersection; what would be the next closest bus stop if this stop was eliminated; what type of bus stop will this be; will the bus stop reduce the footprint that can by used outside of business by its owner(s) for marketing and such; how many blocks are there between this stop and the next closest stop; how much outreach was conducted with the community; and will trash receptacles be available at this stop.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to safety concerns with the intersection for pedestrians; viable options for the bus stop; the desire for the businesses in the Pico area to thrive; encouraging the businesses to apply for façade improvement grants; concerns for overall health and safety for the community members; commitment to Vision Zero; and concerns about the lack of outreach to the business community and underinvesting in the neighborhood.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Zwick, to adopt the East Pico Blvd safety study and plan as recommended by staff. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Zernitskaya
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: Councilmember Snell
ABSENT: None
Questions asked and answered of staff regarding the protected bike lanes on the Broadway Corridor included what is the actual rideable width of the bike lanes, excluding the gutter; how does the proposed width compare to NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) standards; what is the minimum width for protected bike lanes according to best practices; what are the standard travel lane widths in other cities (e.g., Los Angeles); what is the relationship between travel lane width and vehicle speeds; what are the safety implications of narrowing travel lanes to 10 feet; what were the results and feedback from the pilot segment with narrower lanes and parking; if the bike lanes are widened, where does the space come from—parking or travel lanes; what are the impacts of reducing parking lane width versus travel lane width; what are the trade-offs for emergency vehicle access, turning radii, and business loading zones; could a two-way cycle track (bi-directional bike lane) be implemented on one side of the street; was making Broadway a one-way street considered; what would be the cost and timeline implications of a full redesign; what outreach and engagement was done with local businesses, residents, and advocacy groups; what feedback was received from the fire department,

4.A
Packet Pg. 36
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 10 July 29, 2025
police, and waste management regarding emergency access; what is the project timeline, and how would a redesign affect grant deadlines; would redesign costs come from the general fund or other sources; how will the design affect parking availability for businesses; and can more bike parking be added in front of businesses to support local commerce.

Considerable discussion ensued regarding the protected bike lanes on the Broadway Corridor on topics including, but not limited to safety concerns with the intersection for pedestrians; viable options for the bus stop; the desire for the businesses in the Pico area to thrive; encouraging the businesses to apply for façade improvement grants; concerns for overall health and safety for the community members; commitment to Vision Zero; and concerns about the lack of outreach to the business community and underinvesting in the neighborhood.

Motion by Councilmember Zwick, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to direct staff to redesign the Broadway protected bike lane cross-section to provide 7-foot bike lanes with 10-foot travel lanes, prioritizing wider bike lanes for safety and usability, even if it requires narrowing the travel lanes. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to approve the contract and staff recommendation with the amendments as directed, and for staff to return with an implementation plan for the additional changes. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, to continue with the meeting and move closed session to the end of the meeting after the Council Discussion Items, as well continue Item 11.A. to the August 12, 2025 Council meeting. The motion was approved by a voice vote of 6-1 with Councilmember Hall casting the dissenting vote because he believed that matters concerning equity issues are frequently delayed by Council.

RECESS On order of the Mayor, the meeting recessed at 8:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:10 p.m. with all Councilmembers present.

4.A
Packet Pg. 37
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 11 July 29, 2025

CLOSED SESSIONS
(Mayor Negrete and
Councilmember Zwick
excused at 1:01 a.m.)
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 11:43 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions and adjourned at 1:19 a.m., with no reportable actions taken. 5A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): John Doe 1, et al. v. City, et al; # 23STCV15009; John UNB Doe, et al. v. Doe 1, et al; # 23STCV12746; John Doe (A.G.) v. SM PAL, et al.; # 23SMCV06066; John JPC Doe v. Doe, City, et al., # 23STCV22020; John AD Doe, et al. v. City, et al; # 23STCV26548; John CW, Doe, et al. v. City, et al; # 23STCV29623; Hector Orozco v. John Doe, et al; # 23SMCV03120; John U.L.W. Doe v. City, et al; # 24STCV06768; John Doe 15, et al. v. City, et al; # 24STCV07647; John RR Doe, et al. v. City, et al; # 24STCV09398; John Doe 18, et al. v. City, et al; # 24STCV08239; John GA Doe, et al. v. City, et al; # 24STCV06484; John Doe 33, et al. v. City, et al; # 24STCV15580; John Doe 48 v. City, et al; # 24STCV15420; Joseph Garcia v. City, et al; # 24SMCV01368; John Doe 49 v. City, et al; # 24STCV19296; Jane EB Doe, et al. v. City, et al; # 24STCV24146; John DD, Doe v. City, et al; # 24SMCV04421; Jane Doe 13, et al. v. City, et al; # 24STCV27233; John AM Doe, et al. v. City, et al; # 24STCV28433; John Doe 52 v. City, et al; # 24STCV30678; John Doe 53 v. City, et al; # 24STCV31763

5.B. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): City v. ICSOP, et al; OCSC # 30-2022-01261243

5.C. Conference with legal counsel – existing litigation – Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Stanford Neighbors Against City Overreach v. City, et al; LASC # 24STCP02065

5.D. Conference with legal counsel – existing litigation – Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Ashland Neighbors v. City, et al; LASC # 25STCP02497

5.E. Conference with legal counsel – existing litigation – Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): La Brea Washington Co. LLC v. City, et al; LASC # 25STCP00961
This item was pulled at the request of staff.

5.F. Public employee performance evaluation - Gov. Code § 54957(b):

City Attorney; conference with labor negotiator - Gov. Code § 54957.6:

City negotiator: Mayor; unrepresented employee: City
Attorney/Interim City Attorney

CITY MANAGER
REPORT
The City Manager Report was presented.

REPORT ON COUNCIL Councilmember Hall and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis reported that they traveled

4.A
Packet Pg. 38
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 12 July 29, 2025
TRAVEL to Chicago for the Local Progress National Convening. They both stated that no city funds were used to attend this event.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON

REMAINING AGENDA
ITEMS
Members of the public Jerry Rubin, Harvey Eder, Denise Barton, Hajar, Joanne Berlin, and Denise C. Neal commented on Item 11.A.

Members of the public Milana Davis, Chance Davis, Lauren Davis, Robbie Jones, Kavon Ward, Hajar, Janet McKeithen, Joanne Berlin, Ericka Lesley, Andrina Seals, and Denise C. Neal commented on Item 11.B.

Members of the public Denise Barton, Heather Thomason, Nikki Kolhoff, and Eve Lopez commented on Item 16.B.

Members of the public Denise Barton, Pam O’Connor, Heather Thomason, Tracey Hom, and Nikki Kolhoff commented on Item 16.C.

STAFF

ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:

CITYWIDE EQUITY
PLAN

11.A. Approval of Citywide Equity Plan, was continued to the August 12, 2025 Council meeting.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive and approve the Citywide Equity Plan;

2. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

EBONY BEACH CLUB 11.B. Ebony Beach Club, was heard.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council review the materials provided by the City Attorney’s Office and provide direction to staff on next steps with the heirs of Silas White and the Ebony Beach Club nonprofit.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to appreciation to staff for bringing this forward, to not forget about the history of wrongs transacted against certain populations in the city, the importance of deadlines in this process and the need to expedite the mediation process; and the loss of generational wealth.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

4.A
Packet Pg. 39
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 13 July 29, 2025
PUBLIC HEARINGS:

CIVIC CENTER

SPECIFIC PLAN

12.A. Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution No. 11690 (CCS) Approving Proposed Civic Center Specific Plan Amendment; and Introduction for First Reading to Adopt the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement for RAND’s existing institutional office building located at 1776 Main Street, was heard.

Recommended Action
Recommendation that the City Council take following actions pertaining to RAND’s headquarters building located at 1776 Main Street:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Class 1 Exemption (Existing Facilities));

2. Adoption of Resolution No. 11690 (CCS) approving a Civic Center Specific Plan Amendment; and

3. Introduce an ordinance for first reading to adopt the Second Amendment to the RAND Development Agreement.

Members of the public Jerry Rubin, Pam O’Connor, Brad Ewing, Denise Barton, and Denise C. Neal, spoke to the recommended action.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Zwick, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SENATE BILL 1123 12.B. Public Hearing and Adoption of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2821 (CCS) of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Extending and Amending Regulations Established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816 (CCS) to Permit the Establishment of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as Part of Projects Utilizing Senate Bill (SB) 1123 on Vacant Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential, Ensure Project Feasibility of SB 1123 Projects by Providing for Certain Relaxed Development Standards, and Expand the Establishment of ADUs to All Projects Utilizing Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41 Which Includes Parcels Within Multiple-Unit Zoning District as Permitted Pursuant to SB 684, was heard.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

4.A
Packet Pg. 40
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 14 July 29, 2025

1. Adopt a finding of Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4.5(b) and a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

2. Introduce and Adopt Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2821 (CCS) Extending and Amending the Regulations Established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816 (CCS) to Permit the Establishment of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as Part of Projects Utilizing Senate Bill (SB) 1123 on Vacant Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential, Ensure Project Feasibility of SB 1123 Projects by Providing for Certain Relaxed Development Standards, and Expand the Establishment of ADUs to All Projects Utilizing Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41 Which Includes Parcels Within Multiple-Unit Zoning District as Permitted Pursuant to SB 684.

Members of the public Daniel Funk, Connor Webb, Pam O’Connor, Brad Ewing, Erin King, Darlene Vogel, Benjamin Passino, Denise C. Neal, Matias Fuchs-Lynch, Heather Thomason, Joseph Cohen May, and Nikki Kolhoff, spoke to the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included why is an emergency zoning ordinance being used in this instance and will data be collected to ensure that these changes are leading to the construction of more units being built.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to the ordinance leading to the ability for older homes, often vacated after the death of elderly residents, to be transformed into multiple modest homes for new families, rather than being replaced by large mansions thus helping young families to be able to afford to live in Santa Monica; the history of singlefamily zoning as a tool for racial exclusion; similar ordinances in other cities (Portland, Berkeley, Houston, Austin, Minneapolis, Sacramento) that have led to increased affordability; affordability requirements for projects with more than five units to be able to include some affordable housing; concerns about increased density, scale, and the long-term livability of the community; upzoning could lead to more expensive, market-rate housing, displacement of lower-income residents, and strain on infrastructure; concerns about the use of emergency powers for non-emergency situations; the lack of meaningful affordability requirements, and the potential for gentrification and loss of neighborhood character; the need for anti-displacement measures, tenant protections, and ensuring that new development does not come at the expense of existing residents; and the need for more community engagement and a balanced approach that considers both housing needs and neighborhood impacts.

Motion by Councilmember Zwick, seconded by Councilmember

4.A
Packet Pg. 41
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 15 July 29, 2025
Zernitskaya, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Hall, Zwick
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis
NOES: Councilmember Raskin and Mayor Negrete
ABSENT: None

COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:

In accordance with Council Rule 6(y), all Councilmember Discussion items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

Items 16.C. and 16.D. were removed and considered separately in accordance with Council Rule 6(y)
Motion by Councilmember Zernitskaya, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, to approve the Councilmember Discussion Items except for Items

16.C. and 16.D. The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

BUILDING & FIRE-LIFE

SAFETY COMMISSION

16.A. Recommendation to accept Charles G. Whitaker's resignation from the Building & Fire-Life Safety Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy, was accepted with regret.

YIMBYTOWN 2025

CONFERENCE

16.B. Request of Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya that the City Council authorize the use of her travel funds to attend the YIMBYtown 2025 conference in New Haven, Connecticut taking place September 14- 16, 2025. YIMBYtown is the premier nationwide pro-homes conference for advocates, organizers, and policymakers, offering trainings, panels, tours, speeches and networking with others around the country, was approved.

HOUSING ELEMENT
PROGRAM 1.C.

16.C. Request of Councilmember Zwick, Councilmember Raskin, and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis that the City Council direct the City Manager to return with options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element Program 1.C. Despite prior best efforts, our City continues to see underutilized parking lots remain vacant on commercial corridors. Updates to development standards may be needed in order to incentivize housing projects along transit corridors and near a future “Great Park.” Specifically, additional incentives may include new zoning/ development standards for housing projects on surface parking lots associated with commercial corridors that match the zoning/ development standards of the commercial corridors they abut and removal of the requirement that new housing projects replace code-required parking at 50%, was heard.

4.A
Packet Pg. 42
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 16 July 29, 2025
Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Zwick, to approve the item. The motion was approved by a voice vote of 6-1 with Mayor Negrete casting the dissenting vote.

WAIVING OF CITY FEES 16.D. Request of Mayor Negrete that the City Council approve waiving City fees not to exceed $15,000 for the Butterfly Brawl, a boxing, charity and entertainment event on the Santa Monica Pier on August 16, 2025.

Butterfly Brawl’s mission is to combine high-level boxing, entertainment, and philanthropy in support of cancer-related causes.

This year, fundraising efforts will focus on the Santa Monica Police Activities League (PAL) and the American Cancer Society that supports those affected by cancer, was heard.

Motion by Mayor Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Zwick, to approve the item. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: Councilmember Hall
ABSENT: None

4.A
Packet Pg. 43
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 17 July 29, 2025
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 1:19 a.m. in memory of Melva Colter.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Nikima S. Newsome Lana Negrete
City Clerk Mayor

4.A
Packet Pg. 44
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 29, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 14, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Approval of Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting - Sep 30, 2025 5:30 PM
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Minutes 09-30-2025
B. Written Comments

4.B
Packet Pg. 45
1 September 30, 2025
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 30, 2025
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Negrete at 5:36 p.m., on Tuesday, September 30, 2025, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Lana Negrete
Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis (arrived at 5:40 P.M.)
Councilmember Jesse Zwick
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: City Manager Oliver Chi
Interim City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
City Clerk Nikima S. Newsome
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:36 p.m., with all members present except Mayor Pro Tem Torosis. Councilmember Snell led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Snell.

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 2 September 30, 2025
required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official.

Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well.

No Councilmembers recused themselves from any items on the agenda pursuant to the Levine Act.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya to hear Item 2.A. before public input for general public comment and special agenda items, to hear the mayor’s highlight with the special agenda items, and to hear Item 12.B. before Item 12.A. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present except Mayor Pro Tem Torosis.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

GENERAL PUBLIC

COMMENT AND

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS:
(Mayor Pro Tem Torosis
arrived at 5:40 P.M.)
Members of the public Denise Barton, Andrew Hoyer, Morgan Hunter Gross, Johnathan Foster, Heather Thomason, Lainie Zepeda, Gina DeBaca, Bee Barba-Padilla, and Alyssa Kluge commented on various local issues.

No members of the public commented on Special Agenda items.

PROCLAMATIONS/

COMMENDATIONS/

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS

2.A. Proclamation: Hispanic Heritage Month, was presented.

2.B. Commendation: Chris Baca (Meals on Wheels) Retirement, was presented.

2.C. Proclamation: Sandwich Generation Appreciation Day, was presented.

2.D. Proclamation: Fire Prevention Week, was presented.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

CONSENT CALENDAR

AND CLOSED SESSION
ONLY:
(Mayor Pro Tem Torosis was
excused at 6:29 p.m. and
returned at 6:32 p.m.)
Member of the public Jim Harris commented on Consent Calendar items.

Members of the public Zina Josephs, Alan Levenson, and John Reynolds commented on Closed Session items.

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 3 September 30, 2025
CONSENT CALENDAR: All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

At the request of Councilmember Hall, Item 4.B. was removed from the Consent Calendar.

At the request of staff, Item 4.H. was removed from the agenda.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Items 4.B. and 4.H., reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

HIGHWAY BRIDGE

PROGRAM

4.A. Award Bid SP2060-CT to Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. and RFP SP2060-CM to Bureau Veritas North America, Inc; Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Enter Into Contracts with Shimmick Construction and Bureau Veritas and a Contract Modification with Dokken Engineering, Inc.; Authorize the City Manager to Accept Grant Award from the Highway Bridge Program and All Grant Renewals, and to Execute All Necessary Associated Documents for the Pier Bridge Replacement Project, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the project was previously analyzed in the certified Santa Monica Pier Bridge Replacement Project Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment in accordance with CEQA;

2. Adopt Addendum #1 to the Santa Monica Pier Bridge Replacement Project Recirculated Final Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Assessment;

3. Award Bid #SP2060-CT to Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. for the Pier Bridge Replacement Project for the Public Works Department;

4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No. 11768 (CCS) with Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $35,579,292 (including a 20% contingency), and, if necessary, authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a bridge equipment lease agreement with Acrow Corporation of America for lease of a temporary pedestrian bridge system;

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 4 September 30, 2025

5. Award Request for Proposals (RFP) #SP2060-CM to Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. to provide construction management and inspection services for the Pier Bridge Replacement Project for the Public Works Department; and

6. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No. 11769 (CCS) with Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $4,892,153 (including a 10% contingency);

7. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Agreement No. 11361 (CCS) in the amount of $218,623 with Dokken Engineering, Inc. for additional bridge engineering construction support services for the Pier Bridge Replacement Project for the Public Works Department. This will result in an amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $4,377,023;

8. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the amount of $30,201,250 from the Highway Bridge Program for the Santa Monica Pier Bridge Replacement Project in the Department of Public Works, and to accept all grant renewals;

9. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals; and

10. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

PARKING OPERATIONS

SERVICES

4.C. Authorization to Extend Agreements for Parking Operations Management, Parking Access Revenue and Control Systems Services, and Credit Card Payment Services for Parking Operations, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council

1. Adopt a finding of no significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a third modification to Agreement No. 10201 (CCS) in the amount of $13,100,084 with SP Plus LLC for Parking Operations Management.

This will extend the expiration date from October 31, 2025, to June 30, 2027, resulting in an 11-year and 8 month amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $81,800,084, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval;

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a third modification to Agreement No. 10413 (CCS) in the amount of $2,239,240 with Skidata, Inc. for Parking Access and Revenue Control Systems (PARCS) services. This will extend the expiration date from November 30, 2025, to June 30, 2027, resulting in a 10- year and 3 month amended agreement with a new total amount not to

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 5 September 30, 2025
exceed $8,736,240, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and

4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a third modification to Agreement No. 10599 (CCS) in the amount of $180,000 with Windcave, Inc. for credit card payment gateway provider services on Skidata Parking Access and Revenue Control Systems. This will extend the expiration date from December 31, 2025, to June 30, 2027, resulting in a 9-year and 10 month amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $1,250,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

HVAC REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

4.D. Award Bid SP2750 and Construction Contract to AC Pros, Inc. for the Santa Monica Department of Transportation HVAC
Replacement Project, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemptions pursuant to Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15302 (Replacement/Reconstruction) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award Bid #2750 to AC Pros, Inc. for the Santa Monica Department of Transportation HVAC Replacement Project for the Public Works Department;

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No. 11770 (CCS) with AC Pros, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $ 2,271,522 (including a 10% contingency) for a term of three years, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and

4. Authorize the budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of the report (requires 5 votes).

TITLE VI 2025

PROGRAM UPDATE

4.E. Adoption of Big Blue Bus Title VI 2025 Program Update, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Big Blue Bus 2025 Title VI Program update.

DIESEL FUEL

PURCHASE AND

DELIVERY

4.F. Authorization for Procurement Manager to Issue Purchase Orders to AAA Oil, Inc. for Purchase and Delivery of Diesel Fuel for the Public Works and Fire Departments, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 6 September 30, 2025

2. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue purchase orders with AAA Oil, Inc. under County of Los Angeles Master Agreement MAIS-2240008-9 for the purchase and delivery of diesel fuel for the Public Works and Fire Departments. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250(c), (i).

NURSE PRACTITIONER

AGREEMENTS

4.G. Award Nurse Practitioner Agreements for Advanced Provider Unit, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11771 (CCS) with Tiffany Leighanne Barajas DBA Affinity Care as a Nurse Practitioner for the Advanced Provider Unit for the Fire Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.250(i) and 2.24.240(a) and an amount not to exceed $95,464 (including a $18,664 contingency) over a one-year period, with four 1-year renewal options, for a total amount not to exceed $504,667 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval;

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11772 (CCS) with Courtney Nabors DBA Naborly Nursing Inc. as a Nurse Practitioner for the Advanced Provider Unit for the Fire Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.250(i) and 2.24.240(a) and an amount not to exceed $95,464 (including a $18,664 contingency) over a one-year period, with four 1-year renewal options, for a total amount not to exceed $504,667 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and

4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11773 (CCS) with Patricia Martin as a Nurse Practitioner for the Advanced Provider Unit for the Fire Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.250(i) and

2.24.240(a) and an amount not to exceed $47,731 (including a $9,332 contingency) over a one-year period, with four 1-year renewal options, for a total amount not to exceed $252,332 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 7 September 30, 2025

BANK OF AMERICA

LEASE AGREEMENT

4.H. Authorization to Enter into Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with Bank of America for City-Owned Property Located at 1301 Fourth Street, was pulled at the request of staff.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize:

1. City Manager to negotiate and execute a Third Amendment to the Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with Bank of America for the City-owned property at 1301 Fourth Street. The Third Amendment would extend term from February 1, 2026 through December 31, 2028; and

2. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

PARKING METER

PAYMENT

REQUIREMENTS

4.I. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2827 (CCS) Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.16.120 to Exempt Additional Zero Emission Vehicles from Parking Meter Payment Requirements, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

CANNABIS BUSINESS

REGULATIONS

4.J. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2828 (CCS) Amending Chapter 6.200 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to Authorize and Establish Regulations for Cannabis Businesses and Delete Chapters 6.201, 6.202, and 6.203 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

CANNABIS RETAILER

ZONING ORDINANCE

4.K. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2829 (CCS) Amending the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Authorize Cannabis Retailers to Sell Adult-Use and Medicinal Cannabis and Cannabis Products Within Certain Zoning Districts, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

DIGITAL DISPLAY

DISTRICT

4.L. Award RFP #456 and Professional Services Agreement No. 11774 (CCS) to Playfly, LLC for Economic Analysis of Potential Digital Display District, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 8 September 30, 2025

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award RFP#456 to Playfly, LLC for economic consulting services for the Community Development Department;

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11774 (CCS) with Playfly, LLC for an amount not to exceed $226,750 over a 5-year period.

DOG BITE INJURIES 4.M. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.04.155 and Adding Section

4.04.405 Relating to Obligations After a Dog Bite Causes Injury to Persons or Animals, was introduced and approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Introduce for first reading the attached Ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.04.155 and adding Section

4.04.405 to provide private remedies when a dog maintained in violation of the leash law bites another animal or person, and to require dog owners to share information after dog bites causing injury to persons or animals.

MINUTES 4.N. Approval of Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting - Sep 9, 2025 5:30 PM, were approved.

MINUTES 4.O. Approval of Minutes of City Council - Special Meeting - Sep 9, 2025 5:35 PM, were approved.

HOMELAND SECURITY

PROGRAM

4.B. Accept 2024 State Homeland Security Program Grant Funds, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the amount of $60,875 from the federal Department of Homeland Security for the 2024 State Homeland Security Program grant on behalf of the Fire Department and to accept all future grant renewals;

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 9 September 30, 2025

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary grant agreement required to accept the grant and any subsequent grant modifications; and

4. Authorize a budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

Questions asked and answered of staff included does acceptance of the grant funding come with any intelligence sharing requirements with the federal government or federal agencies that could put members of the community who are undocumented at risk or change the city’s guidance regarding sharing information about immigration or gender affirming health care.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to wanting the city to cease any agreement with the federal government if it required sharing data or dismantling DEI programs.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CLOSED SESSIONS On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 6:43 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions and returned at 7:55 p.m., with all members present, to report the following:

5.A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Diane Burnett v. City; LASC # 23TRCV00943 [report out only]
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was previously heard at the June 24, 2025 Council meeting where Council approved a settlement in a personal injury case involving a claim that Burnett was injured while a passenger on a Big Blue Bus. The city denies liability but agreed to settle for $175,000, and Burnett agreed to release all claims against the city. The settlement was approved by a vote of 7-0.

5.B. Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: 3100 Donald Douglas Loop North, Santa Monica, California; City negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager; persons to be negotiated with: Delux Public Charter, LLC dba JSX Air (JSX); JSX negotiator:

Alex Wilcox, CEO; under negotiation: lease price and terms of payment

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 10 September 30, 2025
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken but authorized a statement to be read into the record by the City Manager.

The City Manager then made a statement regarding the JSX lease, emphasizing the city’s commitment to closing the Santa Monica Airport at the end of 2028, in compliance with the federal consent decree, and ongoing evaluation of JSX’s operational plans for compliance with all regulations and city rules.

5.C. Conference with legal counsel - potential initiation of litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(4): 1 case
The Interim City Attorney advised that Council approved initiation of litigation as a plaintiff in the lawsuit of Santa Clara County vs. Department of Homeland Security, filed on September 30, 2025, in the federal district court in the Northern District of California. The lawsuit challenges new conditions placed on FEMA grants by the Trump administration. The initiation of litigation was approved by a vote of 7-0.

CITY MANAGER
REPORT
The City Manager Report was presented.

REPORT ON COUNCIL
TRAVEL
Councilmember Zernitskaya reported that she traveled to New Haven, CT for YIMBYtown.

PUBLIC INPUT ON

REMAINING AGENDA
ITEMS:

Member of the public Denise Neal commented on Item 10.A.

Members of the public Zennon Ulyate-Crow, Matias Fuchs-Lynch, Sam Shapiro-Klien, Dave Rand, Brad Ewing, Denny Zane, Mike Soloff, Joseph Cohen May, Denise Neal, Nikki Kolhoff, Heather Thomason, and Jacob Wasserman commented on Item 11.A.

Members of the public Andrew Hoyer, John Reynolds, John Prindle, Ryan Olson, Brad Ewing, Zina Josephs, Denise Neal, John Cyrus Smith, Nikki Kohlhoff, Heather Thomason, Jacob Wasserman, Jason Mastbaum, and Olga Zurawska commented on Item 11.B.

Member of the public Kim Koury commented on Item 16.F.

ORDINANCES:
2025 CALIFORNIA

BUILDING STANDARDS
CODE

10.A. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting the 2025 California Building Standards Code and Adoption of Resolution No. 11701 (CCS) making Findings of Climatic, Geological and Topographical Conditions, was introduced and approved.

Recommended Action

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 11 September 30, 2025
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance to adopt the 2025 California Building, Residential, Electrical, Energy, Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire, Green Building, Wildland-Urban Interface, Historical and Existing Building Standards Codes and local amendments to the 2025 California Building Standards Code;

3. Adopt attached Resolution No. 11701 (CCS) making findings of local climatic, geological and topographical conditions, as required; and

4. Instruct staff to file the adopted resolution and ordinance with the California Building Standards Commission following the second reading of the ordinance, but at least 30 days before the effective date of the Codes.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
STAFF

ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:

OFF-SITE AFFORDABLE

HOUSING PILOT

INCENTIVE PROGRAM
(Councilmember Snell was
excused from the meeting at
9:09 P.M.)

11.A. Off-site Affordable Housing Pilot Incentive Program Status Update, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive an update on the Emergency Ordinance establishing the Pilot Program for the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP)

2. Provide direction to Staff on whether to terminate, extend, and/or amend the Emergency Ordinance.

Councilmember Snell stated that he would be recusing himself from the item because he is president of the Santa Monica Black Empowerment Association and his wife is the executive director and they have a lease with one of the applicants for this item.

Questions asked and answered of staff included is there any flexibility with the December 31 deadline for entitled projects if a project is in the middle of entitling and what stage they would have to reach to qualify; does raising the

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 12 September 30, 2025
gap financing to $160,000 per unit strike the right balance, and would adding binding milestones give the city greater certainty that affordable units will be delivered on time; is it legal to require participants in the program to pay the GS fee or an equivalent, regardless of future changes in law; has any developer used the off-site option outside of development agreements before this pilot; would developers be willing to negotiate development agreements to unstick projects; is there evidence that developers or investors would assume responsibility for unknown higher construction costs; would developers accept a higher gap financing amount or higher in-lieu fee; would a foreclosed property remain deed-restricted affordable under Option #1; what is the annual percentage increase in the gap financing amount, specifically if the construction cost index has ever gone above 5% and what the average annual increase has been; and how many affordable units would be produced from the current applications under the pilot program.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to the need for bold and creative solutions to unlock both market-rate and affordable housing units; that without action, no units will be built; support for safeguards and accountability but prioritizing getting housing built, both market-rate and affordable; the importance of the program for the city’s future; the urgency due to low housing production; the proposal of amendments including: raising the gap financing to $160,000 per unit for new applications, adding enforceable delivery milestones, requiring GS tax payment commitments, and expanding the in-lieu fee option; the need for compromise, accountability, and restoring the program’s original promise; the importance of actually building affordable housing, protecting Measure GS, and replenishing the Housing Trust Fund; the reasons for the failure of the previous off-site program due to financial infeasibility; the need for a regulatory environment that makes building affordable homes financially viable; reservations about the off-site program and a preference to pause option three until a new nexus study is complete; the importance of collaboration and trade-offs to achieve affordable housing goals; the need to protect residents from displacement, the city’s insufficient housing production, and the importance of preparing for future demand due to climate change and affordability challenges; concern that this will allow developers to "buy their way out" of providing inclusive housing; measuring success by whether people who move to Santa Monica can afford to stay, not just by the number of units built; and the concern about policies that could lead to further segregation.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Zwick, to adopt the following motion:
● Confirm Existing Applications:
● All projects already submitted under the original pilot program approved on August 12, 2025, shall proceed under the terms

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 13 September 30, 2025
previously adopted.
● Increase Gap Financing Requirement:
● For new applications, raise the required gap financing deposit from $150,000 to $160,000 per unit, based on updated staff analysis and discussions with CMO.
● Direct staff to return annually with a Council resolution to review and update the gap financing amount based on construction cost index data, ensuring predictability for investors as well as alignment with actual costs.
● Strengthen Affordable Housing Delivery Milestones and City Option Rights:
● Require binding milestones for off-site affordable projects, including:
o Submission of a complete entitlement application before issuance of a building permit for the market-rate project. o Submission of a complete permit application before
issuance of a certificate of occupancy (COO) for the
market-rate project.
● Provide for expedited processing of off-site affordable projects to prevent City-related delays.
● Authorize the City to exercise its option early, including receiving the off-site property, gap financing, entitlements and construction and architectural plans if milestones are not met. ● GS Tax Commitment:
● Direct staff to return with options that will allow for a provision requiring developers electing to participate in the pilot to commit to payment of the GS tax, or its equivalent amount should the law change upon sale of the project.
● Program Expansion with Safeguards:
● Expand the program by up to all additional units as originally proposed for the pilot program, beyond the current 1,000-unit cap.
● Direct staff to return with a financing competitiveness analysis to ensure expanded participation will not inadvertently undermine affordable housing production on City-owned land (i.e. projects pursuing tax credits).
● Long-Term Affordability Protections:
● Direct staff to explore adding a city right of first refusal or negotiated purchase agreements at the expiration of 75-year affordability covenants to safeguard long-term affordability so long as they are constitutional and would not impede private

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 14 September 30, 2025
refinancing or resale over the 75-year period.
● In-Lieu Fee Option (Option 3):
● Allow the in-lieu fee option to expand to all additional units as originally proposed for the pilot program.
● Maintain the interim construction cost index escalator on in-lieu fees.
● Direct staff to initiate a nexus study and feasibility analysis that’s compliant with the Sheetz decision in order to update the in-lieu fee so it balances the cost of producing new affordable units with project viability.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Raskin, Hall, Zwick
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis
NOES: Mayor Negrete
ABSENT: Councilmember Snell

NEIGHBORHOOD

ORGANIZATION GRANT

PROGRAM
(Councilmember Snell
returned to the meeting at
10:12 P.M.)

11.B. Considerations for Reforming the Neighborhood Organization Grant Program, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Review and comment on the Neighborhood Organization Grant program policy options and direct staff on how to proceed with program; and

2. Council adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Questions asked and answered of staff included if option two in the staff report explicitly prohibits political endorsements, establishes a five-year ineligibility for violations, and if so, how would enforcement be; what are some best practices from other jurisdictions, specifically what does West Hollywood and Mountain View do regarding neighborhood group funding and political endorsements; has there been any discussion with staff about the expansion of neighborhood groups, especially in areas like downtown or other developing parts of the city, and what the process would be for new groups to be recognized; is it appropriate for the city to subsidize groups that engage in political or lobbying activity, and whether it would be appropriate to require groups seeking city funding or recognition to register as 501(c)(3) organizations and abide by related tax laws; what is the ability for organizations to collect and publish demographic information on membership and board representation; and what are alternative engagement plans if groups are not representative of their neighborhoods.

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 15 September 30, 2025
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to the appropriateness for the city to subsidize groups that engage primarily or substantially in political or lobbying activity, unless the city is also funding other advocacy groups; proposals to require groups to register as 501(c)(3) organizations and abide by related tax laws, and to collect and publish demographic information to ensure groups are representative of their neighborhoods; emphasis that the issue is not with groups existing as 501(c)(4)s or endorsing candidates, but with accepting taxpayer dollars to build membership lists that are then used for partisan politics; permitting neighborhood associations to be able to lobby on issues but not endorse candidates; the importance of neighborhood organizations for civic life and the need for clear boundaries when public dollars are involved; ensuring neighborhood groups remain accessible civic spaces but not partisan platforms; the ability to obtain information on how neighborhood organizations take policy positions and ensuring that the program will still allow for the formation of new groups; the importance of neighborhood groups pushing back on City Hall; the need for transparency and inclusivity; and that neighborhood groups should not be echo chambers and encouraging residents to join and make their voices heard.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Raskin, to approve the following motion:
• Direct staff to bring back Seascape on at least an annual basis as soon as possible.
• As a condition of participation in the Neighborhood Organization Grant Program, if an organization endorses or opposes political candidates after receiving taxpayer dollars, they are ineligible for participation for at least 5 years (covering the next two election cycles, inclusive of the reelection cycle of any winning candidates they endorsed) and they will not be listed on the City’s website because political organizations are not officially recognized on the city’s website.
• Permission and encouragement to promote non-political neighborhood association, business improvement district, SMTT, and Pier Corporation events in Seascape.
• Approval of the equity in funding model based on number of households as outlined in the staff report; funding is to be used only for community building events.
• Direct that when staff returns later this fall with a new standardized fee waiver program that they consider the neighborhood associations - appropriate to their status as 501c3s or 501c4s - so that neighborhoods

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 16 September 30, 2025
can more easily execute closed street events or use public spaces like parks and the Pier for example.
• Direct staff to bring back the City-sponsored election forum, and explore co-sponsorship with the trusted apolitical organization, the League of Women Voters of Santa Monica.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember Zwick, Hall, Raskin , Snell, Zernitskaya Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Additional direction to collect demographic data on membership and board members as legal and to examine bylaws of the neighborhood groups and return with an information item reporting how policy making decisions are made.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

GENERAL PLAN LAND

USE MAP &

DISTRICTING MAP
(Mayor Pro Tem Torosis was
excused at 12:01 a.m. and
returned at 12:02 a.m.)

12.A. Adoption of Resolution No. 11702 (CCS) to Amend the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map and the Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Official Districting Map for a Portion of the Parcel Located at 2644 30th Street, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, consistent with the findings set forth in the “Environmental Review” section of this Report;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 11702 (CCS) Amending the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map for a Portion of the Parcel Located at 2644 30th Street; and

3. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending the Official Districting Map for a Portion of the Parcel Located at 2644 30th Street.

Motion by Councilmember Zwick, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to take the item from the table. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present.

Members of the public Jimmy Patton, Jennifer Polhemus, Harlow Sharp II, Michael Drandell, Christopher Kanjo, Zina Josephs, Leanna Einbinder, Roni Crichton, Teri Davis Bernstein, Tracey Hom, Daniel Kolhoff, Nikki Kolhoff,

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 17 September 30, 2025
Heather Thomason, Mindi Shank, Loren Bloch, Jeffrey Palmer, Gabrielle Ipale, and Paula Larmore spoke to the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included how did the zoning error occur during the LUCE process; was it an oversight; would the 10-year covenant offered by the property owner allow the city to revisit the parcel during the next LUCE update; when did the current leases start, and was it possible to lease the building under the current zoning; is it plausible that the building could remain vacant for more than a year, and what would be required if that happened; if the building remains a legal non-conforming use, must it be limited to a production office, or could it be another type of office use; when other commercial buildings in the city were re-zoned back to commercial, what was the logic, and does the same logic apply to this property; is the action intending to re-zone the parking lot or just the office building; would the covenant prohibit all redevelopment or just housing redevelopment, and could other types of redevelopment occur; was there any record of a deliberate policy decision by council to downzone this property during the 2010 LUCE or 2015 zoning updates; is it feasible to lease, make repairs, and release the property under current zoning; what are the limitations on remodeling the building; what types of businesses could lease the property under the current zoning; why is re-zoning needed if there is already flexibility to lease and remodel; was the LUCE’s intent to protect the neighborhood, and was the zoning a mistake or intentional; and what is the timing and feasibility of a citywide review of similar properties.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to acknowledgment of the property owner’s efforts to address concerns (including offering a 10-year covenant) regarding potential redevelopment of the building for housing in the future, and reiteration of preference for addressing such zoning issues through a citywide, programmatic approach rather than on a case-by-case basis; the challenges in communication and transparency surrounding the item; confusion and lack of trust in the process; recognition of both the concerns of the business owner (regarding leasing and viability) and the community (regarding potential future development); and why is this rezoning needed given the flexibility already available under current rules.

Motion by Councilmember Zwick, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Snell, Zernitskaya
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis
NOES: Councilmember Raskin, Mayor Negrete
ABSENT: None

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 18 September 30, 2025

GENERAL PLAN LAND

USE MAP &

DISTRICTING MAP

12.B. Adoption of Resolution No. 11703 (CCS) to Amend the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map and the Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Official Districting Map for the Parcel Located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, consistent with the findings set forth in the “Environmental Review” section of this Report;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 11703 (CCS) Amending the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map for the Parcel Located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard; and

3. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending the Official Districting Map for the Parcel Located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to take the item from the table. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present.

Members of the public Lauren Chang and Josh, spoke to the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included what is the relationship between the proposed map amendment and the future implementation of development standards for the parking lot to the north, specifically whether the direction previously given by Council would apply to that parking lot regardless of the outcome of the current item; and, given Santa Monica’s commercial vacancy rate at or above 30%, what risks will the city face if the property remains legally nonconforming and becomes difficult to lease or finance.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to the amendments being consistent with the Council’s economic recovery priorities; desire to retain the building; the desire for a programmatic, citywide approach to these issues and concerns about “spot zoning”; amending the motion to remove the recommendation to “consider excluding the surface parking lot at 1122 14th Street from being eligible to use future development standard amendments for housing projects”, emphasizing the importance of Wilshire Boulevard as a prime target for housing development; the issue at hand being a technical correction rather than spot zoning, and that council had already given direction to address such issues citywide; that the amendment is a technical correction to restore the previous

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 19 September 30, 2025
zoning; and about the feasibility and potential impacts of reviewing legal non-conforming definitions citywide, and the time and effort such a review would require.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to adopt the staff recommendation, excluding the recommendation to “consider excluding the surface parking lot at 1122 14th Street from being eligible to use future development standard amendments for housing projects”. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Hall, Zwick
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis
NOES: Councilmember Raskin and Mayor Negrete
ABSENT: None

COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:

In accordance with Council Rule 6(y), all Councilmember Discussion items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

Items 16. A. and 16.F. were removed and considered separately in accordance with Council Rule 6(y).

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to approve the Councilmember Discussion Items except for Items 16.A. and

16.F. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present.

BUILDING & FIRE-LIFE

SAFETY COMMISSION

16.A. Appointments to one unscheduled vacancy and one scheduled vacancy on the Building & Fire-Life Safety Commission for terms ending on June 30, 2028, were continued until more applications are received.

TRANSIENT

OCCUPANCY TAX

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

16.B. Recommendation to accept Albin Gielicz's resignation from the Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy, was accepted.

ON-SITE PUBLIC
NOTICE

REQUIREMENTS

16.C. Request of Mayor Negrete that the City Council consider directing the City Manager to assess options for enhanced On-Site Public Notice Requirements for Development Projects that will provide greater transparency and accessibility that will provide community members with additional project information and engagement opportunities, was approved.

SANTA MONICA
CITIZEN’S ACADEMY

16.D. Request of Mayor Negrete that the City Council consider directing the City Manager to assess the viability of establishing a Santa Monica Citizen’s Academy, inclusive of a Youth-in-Government

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 20 September 30, 2025
program component and return to the City Council with options before the end of the year with an overview of how we might implement such a program locally, was approved.

COMMUNITY CRASH

CLEAN-UP PROGRAM

16.E. Request of Mayor Negrete that the City Council consider directing the City Manager to create a Community Trash Clean-Up Program, including the CalTrans Right-of-Way within Santa Monica and return with a program framework for a community trash clean-up initiative, was approved.

OFF THE HOOK SANTA

MONICA SEAFOOD

FESTIVAL

16.F. Request of Councilmember Zwick that the City Council, as part of National Seafood Month, consider approval of City sponsorship of the OFF THE HOOK Santa Monica Seafood Festival taking place on Sunday, October, 19, 2025 on the Santa Monica Pier by directing the City Manager to waive the City’s portion of fees for use of the Pier for Spin PR Group, the Santa Monica-based PR, Marketing and Events agency producing the event. City fees related to the OFF THE HOOK Santa Monica Seafood Festival include the application, administrative, neighborhood notification, business license, parking, and zero waste plan fees associated with the use of the Pier in an amount up to $16,000 in waived fees, was heard.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Zwick, to approve the item. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Zwick
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: Councilmember Hall
ABSENT: None
Councilmember Hall stated that he voted no on the item not because he doesn’t support the event but because a framework has not yet been brought forth to Council to provide guidance on these fee waiver requests.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 12:50 a.m. in memory of Chief Warrant Officer 3 William Warren, U.S. Army and Robert Redford.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Nikima S. Newsome Lana Negrete
City Clerk Mayor

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Minutes 09-30-2025 (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:11 AM
To: Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: SMCC Meeting, October 14, 2025, BOTH Item 4B (Minutes of 9/30/25 SMCC meeting Item 5B) and Item 1
Attachments: LETTER and Attachments -- Letter to SM 10-13-2025 Re FAA 2023-1857-merged.pdf

EXTERNAL
PUBLIC COMMENT for BOTH: SMCC 10/14/25 Item 4B (re: Minutes of 9/30/25 SMCC meeting Item 5B) and Item 1
SUBJECT: SMO -- JetSuiteX - FAA-2023-1857 -- Violation of Consent Decree without Written Safety Clearance from FAA and LAX
Dear Santa Monica City Manager, City Council, and Airport Commission, The City of Santa Monica will be in violation of the 2017 Consent Decree if it allows JSX to operate at SMO.

The Consent Decree specifically states in Section II.A. that the City "shall accommodate aircraft operations that can SAFELY take off and land.” Furthermore, it specifically states in Section VI that:
"The City’s operation of the Airport until December 31, 2028 shall conform with (i) the standards set forth in grant assurances 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 30; and (ii) all applicable state and federal operational, maintenance, and safety standards. For purposes of this paragraph, the substantive standards of grant assurances 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 30 shall apply until December 31, 2028." What do the Grant Assurances say?
Grant Assurance 19 further requires the airport "to be operated at all times in a SAFE and serviceable condition."
Grant Assurance 22 clearly states the City "may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the SAFE and efficient operation of the airport" and the City "may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the SAFE operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public." The City must fully comply with the Consent Decree and uphold its responsibility to ensure that only operations meeting all safety and regulatory standards are permitted at SMO.

It is significant and relevant that the region’s major airport authorities, Los Angeles World Airports (which manages both LAX and Van Nuys Airport) and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SAN), have filed strong formal objections to JSX’s operations in the FAA’s Docket Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 2 FAA-2023-1857, based on safety and other concerns. LAX and SMO aircraft operations share their air space and operations are required to be DECONFLICTED. So, if LAX deems JSX operations unsafe, then the Consent Decree is violated.

In their official filings, these major airport operators joined two of the nation’s largest airlines and pilot unions in warning that the Part 135 “public charter” business model exploited by JSX undermines the FAA’s One Level of Safety policy, bypasses TSA and Part 139 certification standards, and erodes the integrity of the national air transportation system.

This point is especially relevant because Van Nuys Airport (VNY), like Santa Monica Airport, is a general aviation facility that lacks Part 139 certification. Even at VNY, a much larger, betterequipped field farther from homes, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) has taken a firm stance opposing JSX-type operations for the same safety, security, and compliance reasons now before this the City of Santa Monica (City Council, City Manager, and Airport Commission).

Santa Monica should take an equally careful and principled approach consistent with its regional counterparts, the FAA, and its duties under the 2017 Consent Decree. Otherwise the City will be in clear violation of the Consent Decree.

Attached is a detailed letter and public-docket materials for FAA-2023-1857, including formal comments by Los Angeles World Airports (LAX and VNY), the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SAN), Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and the Southwest Airlines Pilots. These filings, submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation and the FAA, make clear that JSX’s business model is at the center of an active national rulemaking intended to close the very dangerous JSX loophole the company now seeks to use at Santa Monica.

Santa Monica should not be an enabler of unsafe aviation operations and it must take its responsibility seriously. Unless and until the City receives explicit written clearance from the FAA and LAWA stating that JSX operations at SMO are confirmed to be safe, the City of Santa Monica should delay permitting their JSX operations at SMO. The City should rightly assume that JSX operations at SMO would be UNSAFE, rather than assume they are safe, based on the documented communications of the aviation organizations above and the current actions of the FAA.

Please confirm receipt of this email and attached letter. This letter follows the previous two petition letters that were submitted by email to the City on October 7, 2025 with the Subject Line, "PETITIONS: DEMAND FOR A PUBLIC HEARING and DEMAND FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT" which included over 100 initial signatories that were gathered in the first two days of signature collection, while the ongoing collection continues to this day.

Please include this email and attached letter in the Public Record regarding JSX, and please disclose this material to any and all parties requesting information regarding JSX at SMO.

Thank you,
Ben Wang
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Safety First JetSuiteX !

SUBMISSION FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
October 12, 2025
Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Via Email
Re: JSX OPERATIONS AT SMO – FAA Docket FAA-2023-1857, Alignment with FAA Rulemaking Before Acting, Request for EIR and Safety Review, Request for Public Hearing, Submission for the Public Record
Dear Mayor, City Council, and City Manager:

On behalf of a large coalition of residents and organizations of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Mar Vista, Venice, Marina del Rey, Rancho Park, Culver City, and adjacent communities, I am submitting this additional letter.

It urges the City to delay any permitting decision on the proposed Commercial Operations Permit (COP) for Delux Public Charter LLC dba JSX Air (JSX) until a full FAA safety review is conducted, an independent Environmental Impact Report is completed, and proper due diligence and process is performed to ensure the City is aligned with the FAA’s rulemaking and guidance. I am also writing again to request a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed initiation of a new commercial air service by JSX at Santa Monica Airport (SMO).

This letter and the attachments (please see ATTACHMENTS 1 and A-E), are submitted to support the above requests. They include:
● Attachment 1 – Notice of Intent - FAA-2023-1857 - Regulatory Definitions of On-Demand Operation, Supplemental Operation, and Scheduled Operation ● Attachment A – Letter from Los Angeles Word Airports - LAX/VNY ● Attachment B – Letter from San Diego Airport - SAN
● Attachment C – Letter from Southwest Airlines
● Attachment D – Letter from Southwest Airlines Pilots Association ● Attachment E – Letter from American Airlines
Introduction and Purpose

Page 1 of 7 ends

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) It is significant and relevant that the region’s major airport authorities, Los Angeles World Airports (which manages both LAX and Van Nuys Airport) and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SAN), have filed strong formal objections to JSX’s operations in the FAA’s Docket FAA-2023-1857. In their official filings, these airport operators joined two of the nation’s largest airlines and pilot unions in warning that the Part 135 “public charter” business model exploited by JSX undermines the FAA’s One Level of Safety policy, bypasses TSA and Part 139 certification standards, and erodes the integrity of the national air transportation system.

This point is especially relevant because Van Nuys Airport (VNY), like Santa Monica Airport, is a general-aviation facility that lacks Part 139 certification. Even at VNY, a much larger, better-equipped field farther from homes, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) has taken a firm stance opposing JSX-type operations for the same safety, security, and compliance reasons now before this the City of Santa Monica (City Council, City Manager, and Airport Commission). Santa Monica should take an equally careful and principled approach consistent with its regional counterparts and its duty under the 2017 Consent Decree.

Attached are public-docket materials for FAA-2023-1857, including formal comments by Los Angeles World Airports (LAX and VNY), the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SAN), Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and the Southwest Airlines Pilots. These filings, submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation and the FAA, make clear that JSX’s business model is at the center of an active national rulemaking intended to close the very JSX loophole the company now seeks to use at Santa Monica.

FAA-2023-1857: National Safety Rulemaking Underway
In August 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 59480), the FAA announced its intent to revise the definitions of “on-demand,” “supplemental,” and “scheduled” operations after determining that certain “public-charter” operators had expanded into high-volume, scheduled-style service under Part 135, creating a two-tier safety system inconsistent with the FAA’s One Level of Safety policy.

Southwest Airlines warned that the Part 380 public-charter JSX loophole undermines this principle and that accident rates for Part 135 carriers are nine times higher and fatality rates ninety-four times higher than for Part 121 airlines. American Airlines explained that these operators sell flights indistinguishable from scheduled service, bypass TSA screening, and engage in regulatory gaming that distorts competition and weakens the nation’s safety architecture. SWAPA urged the FAA to eliminate the JSX loophole entirely, emphasizing that passengers from smaller airports should never face degraded safety. LAWA (LAX/VNY) and SDCRAA (SAN) echoed these concerns and stated that public-charter carriers should operate only from certificated Part 139 airports with fire-rescue and security infrastructure among other basic requirements.

Collectively, these airlines, pilot unions, and nearby airport operators have demanded the end of the exact model JSX now proposes at Santa Monica Airport.

Page 2 of 7 ends

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) JSX’s Proposal Reflects the Unsafe Model Under Federal Review JSX seeks approval to operate six daily flights (note the CEO stated potentially up to 9 at the Santa Monica Airport Commision) with up to 30 passengers each aboard ATR 42-600 turboprops under Part 135 “public-charter” authority. While described as charter service, JSX’s materials describe regularly scheduled, ticketed operations, the very kind of service the FAA and industry define as de facto scheduled airline operations that belong under Part 121.

Delaying any decision until the City completes full due diligence and the FAA clarifies its final rule will avoid making Santa Monica a reckless and dangerous test case for the JSX loophole federal regulators are currently moving to abolish.

LAX–SMO Airspace Deconfliction and Regional Safety Coordination SMO sits directly beneath the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Class B airspace, less than five miles from the LAX final approach corridors. FAA Metroplex data and LAWA briefings confirm that SMO departures and LAX arrivals cannot be fully deconflicted. Their runway centerlines and approach/departure paths intersect, requiring controllers to use strict altitude caps, headings, and timing to keep SMO traffic below and between LAX flows. These procedures work only with low volumes and predictable patterns.

Expanding to scheduled-like JSX operations under the Part 380/135 “public-charter” JSX loophole model would increase flight frequency through this narrow corridor and lengthen exposure from slower-climbing ATR-class aircraft. This is precisely the type of safety concern driving the FAA’s FAA-2023-1857 rulemaking to align public-charter operations with Part 121 airline standards.

Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), operator of both LAX and VNY, has warned in their letter that even at VNY, a larger and better-equipped airfield, such operations pose safety and compliance risks. If unsafe at VNY, they are even more hazardous at SMO, which sits closer to LAX, within intersecting corridors, and lacks Part 139 certification.

Permitting JSX to operate under these conditions would violate the City’s 2017 Consent Decree, which requires that the City “shall accommodate aircraft operations that can safely take off and land.” When LAWA itself has stated such operations are not safe, the City cannot lawfully or prudently proceed, with full proper due diligence, FAA Safety Review, and coordination with LAWA.

Runway and Operational Safety Deficiencies

Page 3 of 7 ends

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Santa Monica’s single 3,500-foot runway, shortened under the 2017 Consent Decree, is below the ATR 42-600 manufacturer’s published takeoff and landing distance requirements for typical temperature, elevation, and loading conditions in Los Angeles. Under Part 121, scheduled airlines must apply a 15% runway-length safety margin to manufacturer performance data and demonstrate compliance with balanced field and accelerate-stop criteria. Under Part 135 however, the regulatory framework JSX seeks to use through the Part 380 “public-charter” JSX loophole, no such safety margin is required, allowing operations with little or no performance buffer. Homes lie within both Runway Protection Zones (RPZs), leaving no physical overrun margin. The FAA’s One Level of Safety policy presumes that aircraft with more than nine passenger seats must operate under Part 121 precisely to prevent these risks. A prudent delay allows independent verification of runway performance margins and mitigations before any decision is taken.

Lack of Airport Certification and Emergency Infrastructure SMO is not Part 139-certificated and lacks required Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) capabilities and equipment, crash-response resources, and TSA screening. Introducing unscreened passenger operations without the mandated safety infrastructure is inconsistent with the standards enforced at LAWA and SDCRAA airports and has been expressly condemned as unsafe and inequitable. Deferring action until these gaps are independently analyzed protects the City and the public.

Higher Accident and Fatality Rates for Part 135 Operations According to NTSB data cited by Southwest Airlines, accident rates for Part 135 operators are more than nine times higher per flight hour and fatality rates ninety-four times higher than for Part 121 carriers. Authorizing frequent Part 135 passenger operations from a short, urban runway exposes passengers and nearby residents to a significantly elevated risk of serious accidents. Waiting for the FAA’s final definitions and guidance is the responsible course.

Environmental Impacts Understated and CEQA Compliance Ignored JSX’s Environmental Assessment substitutes data from a larger ATR 72-600, underestimates traffic volumes, and assumes unrealistic car-pooling rates. These flaws invalidate reliance on a CEQA Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption and trigger the “unusual circumstances” and “cumulative impacts” exceptions that require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Proceeding without independent review exposes the City to litigation and undermines its own environmental standards. A full CEQA process and EIR before any decision is the appropriate remedy.

Page 4 of 7 ends

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) City’s Legal and Financial Exposure Under Federal Obligations Under the 2017 Consent Decree and FAA Grant Assurances 19, 20, 21, 22, and 29, the City must operate the airport safely and maintain federal compliance. Authorizing operations deemed unsafe by federal authorities, other nearby airport operators, and major airlines could expose the City to liability for negligence, nuisance, and breach of grant obligations, violation of the Consent Decree, and even jeopardize FAA indemnity protections in the event of an accident. Delaying action while conducting due diligence limits exposure and aligns with the City’s obligations.

Why a Full CEQA Environmental Impact Report Is Required SMO’s urban location, surrounded by homes, schools, and parks, with occupied RPZs, constitutes an “unusual circumstance” under CEQA §15300.2(c). JSX’s proposed six daily departures (possibly nine), multiple concurrent flight school operations, concurrent helicopter activity, and other private aircraft operations, create cumulative impacts. The applicant’s traffic study, estimating only 46 peak-hour trips, falls just below the 50-trip threshold triggering a Traffic Impact Analysis, but fails to count round-trip rideshare movements. These deficiencies meet CEQA’s fair-argument standard and require a comprehensive EIR before any permitting decision.

JSX’s “Small-Community Access” Argument Is False
JSX claims to provide “critical air access for smaller communities underserved by commercial airlines.” This claim is inaccurate and misleading for SMO. Santa Monica is located at the center of one of the world’s most aviation-rich regions.
● Los Angeles International (LAX): 5 miles — global commercial hub ● Van Nuys (VNY): 11 miles northeast — general aviation ● Burbank (BUR): 13 miles northeast — full scheduled commercial service ● Long Beach (LGB): 21 miles southeast — full scheduled commercial service ● Hawthorne (HHR): 8 miles southeast — general aviation ● Torrance (TOA): 15 miles south — general aviation
● Compton (CPM): 14 miles southeast — general aviation
● Whiteman (WHP): 16 miles northeast — general aviation ● El Monte (EMT): 23 miles east — general aviation
● Camarillo (CMA): 36 miles northwest — general aviation ● Oxnard (OXR): 43 miles northwest — general aviation
● Camarillo (CMA): 36 miles northwest — general aviation Within 25 miles, 9 airports provide comprehensive commercial and charter access. There is no “essential-air-service” gap to fill. Proper process and due diligence prevents legitimizing a false narrative and ensures decisions are grounded in facts, not marketing.

Page 5 of 7 ends

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Airport Certification, Security, and Layout-Plan Compliance SMO lacks Part 139 certification, aircraft rescue and fire fighting, and TSA infrastructure and therefore does not meet the standards necessary for scheduled passenger operations. Federal law (49 U.S.C. §41104(b)) prohibits regularly scheduled charter service using aircraft with more than nine seats at non-certificated airports. Under Grant Assurance 29, the City must maintain an approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) that reflects all current and proposed uses, but the City only has an Airport Diagram. SMO has no ALP covering ATR 42-600 operations; proceeding without one would constitute non-compliance.

The City should defer any decision until FAA guidance is obtained and ALP requirements are resolved.

Financial Responsibility and Operator Accountability
JSX was in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy only a few years ago. Before any decision, the City must identify the entity exercising operational control and financial liability for JSX’s flights and require verifiable proof of insurance and indemnity sufficient to cover a worst-case event in a dense urban and residential setting. The City should also ensure TSA fees and screening protocols prevent the mixing of screened and unscreened passengers within SMO facilities. A deliberate process with financially accountable actors will surface and address these issues.

The City Should Align Its Timing and Decision-Making with FAA-2023-1857 Regardless of how the FAA ultimately modifies these regulations, Santa Monica should delay its decision until federal direction is clear. The City should formally consult with the FAA Western-Pacific Region and the Office of Airport Compliance, then act in harmony with federal definitions, safety expectations, and any required transition plans. The regulatory process may take time, but safety—not speed—must guide the City’s timeline.

Recommended City Process
To ensure transparency, safety, and legal compliance, the community respectfully requests that the City:

1. Delay any permitting decision on the JSX COP until FAA-2023-1857 is finalized and guidance issued;

2. Transmit the FAA docket materials to the City’s aviation counsel and the FAA Western-Pacific Region for written safety/compliance comments;

Page 6 of 7 ends

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg)

3. Initiate a full CEQA EIR under §15064 (unusual circumstances, cumulative impacts, contrary evidence);

4. Hold a publicly noticed Council hearing with FAA participation;

5. Adopt a process policy that no scheduled or quasi-scheduled passenger service at SMO will be considered until alignment with Part 121-level safety standards and the availability of Part 139/ARFF/TSA infrastructure is independently verified;

6. Require proof of financial responsibility and insurance appropriate to commercial passenger operations in a dense urban environment; and

7. Resolve ALP requirements with the FAA before considering any permit.

Conclusion: Safety and Diligence Over Speed; Process Over Pressure Santa Monica has a long record of environmental stewardship and public-safety leadership. Acting deliberately, not hastily, protects residents, reduces City exposure to liability, and aligns with national safety policy.

Moreover, the region’s leading airports—LAX, Van Nuys (VNY), and San Diego International (SAN), have already taken a clear, unequivocal position against the JSX loophole and business model. Each concluded that allowing such operations is incompatible with modern safety, security, and regulatory standards. Santa Monica should proceed with caution, complete the full process, and align its decision-making with the FAA regulatory changes, not rush into a rubber-stamped permit approval.

Respectfully submitted,
Ben Wang
On behalf of the undersigned residents and organizations of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Mar Vista, Venice, Marina del Rey, Rancho Park, Culver City, and adjacent communities.

Attachments
● Attachment 1 – Notice of Intent - FAA-2023-1857 - Regulatory Definitions of On-Demand Operation, Supplemental Operation, and Scheduled Operation ● Attachment A – Letter from Los Angeles Word Airports - LAX/VNY ● Attachment B – Letter from San Diego Airport - SAN
● Attachment C – Letter from American Airlines
● Attachment D – Letter from Southwest Airlines
● Attachment E – Letter from Southwest Airlines Pilots Association

Page 7 of 7 ends

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) BILLING CODE 4910-13

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. FAA-2023-1857]
RIN 2120–ZA32
Notice of Intent to Consider Revisions to the Regulatory Definitions of “On-Demand Operation”, “Supplemental Operation” and “Scheduled Operation” AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

SUMMARY: This notice alerts the public that the FAA intends to initiate a rulemaking to address the exception from FAA’s domestic, flag, and supplemental operations regulations for public charter operators. To inform this effort, the FAA seeks public comment, data, and other information regarding current and planned public charter flights operated under on-demand rules that appear indistinguishable from flights conducted by air carriers as supplemental or domestic operations. The FAA will review comments received in response to this notice to evaluate the need for and, if necessary, scope of any rulemaking.

DATES: Send comments on or before [Insert date 45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-1857 using any of the following methods:

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12- 140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jackie Clow, Aviation Safety Inspector, Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202) 267-8166; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to provide comments, written data, views, or arguments relating to this notice. Send your comments to an address listed under the Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) ADDRESSES section. The FAA will consider comments received on or before the closing date. All comments received will be available in the docket for examination by interested persons.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, see 65 FR 19477, or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

Background
Title 14 CFR part 380 is an economic regulation administered by the Department of Transportation. Currently, under 14 CFR 110.2 of FAA’s safety regulations, public charters operated under the terms of 14 CFR part 380 may be conducted as “on-demand operations” if the aircraft operator is using airplanes, including turbo-jet powered airplanes, with 30 or fewer passenger seats. On-demand operations must be conducted under the operating rules in 14 CFR part 135. See, 14 CFR 119.21 (a)(5) and 135.1(a)(1).

Similarly, public charter operations are excepted from the § 110.2 definition of “scheduled operation” and are included in the definition of “supplemental operation” regardless of whether such operator offers in advance to the public the departure location, departure time, and arrival location of the flight. But for the part 380 exceptions in § 110.2, public charter operators would be required to comply with the operating rules Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) applicable to their operations based on the same criteria as all other air carriers and commercial operators, i.e., 14 CFR part 121.

The FAA intends to initiate a rulemaking to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 110 to address these public charter operations that, in light of recent high-volume operations, appear to be offered to the public as essentially indistinguishable from flights conducted by air carriers as supplemental or domestic operations under 14 CFR part 121. Specifically, the size, scope, frequency, and complexity of charter operations conducted as “on-demand” operations under the part 135 operating rules has grown significantly over the past 10 years. While the FAA has adjusted its oversight of these increased operations, the FAA is considering whether a regulatory change may be appropriate to ensure the management of the level of safety necessary for those operations.

The FAA is considering issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking that will seek comment on removing the exceptions for part 380 public charter operators from the definitions in 14 CFR 110.2 and delink FAA’s safety regulations from DOT’s economic regulations. If the FAA were to remove the exceptions, operators would then conduct public charter flights under the operating part applicable to their operation based on the same criteria that apply to all other non-part 380 operators, including the size and complexity of aircraft they operate and the frequency of flights.

Were FAA to amend its regulatory framework, some operators conducting public charter operations would need to transition from operating under part 135 to part 121.

This transition may require affected operators to adjust their service models. As such, this notice solicits comment, data, and other information regarding: the effects of any removal Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) of the part 380 exception (including any effect on service to small and underserved communities); potential impacts on competition, innovation, and emerging technologies; alternative regulatory structures that could apply to the provision of commercial passenger services under a regime other than part 121 or part 135; if FAA were to adopt a rule, the reasonable period of time needed to allow affected operators to obtain appropriate certificates and authorizations to transition their operations to the applicable operating parts of 14 CFR; and any additional topics interested parties believe should be considered.

The FAA will review all comments submitted to inform its planned rulemaking.

Issued on August 24, 2023.

David H. Boulter,
Acting Associate Administrator, Aviation Safety,
Federal Aviation Administration.

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 59480 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules the availability of this material at NARA,
email [email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.

Issued on August 23, 2023.

Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–18567 Filed 8–28–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 110
[Docket No. FAA–2023–1857]
RIN 2120–ZA32
Revisions to the Regulatory Definitions
of ‘‘On-Demand Operation’’,
‘‘Supplemental Operation’’ and
‘‘Scheduled Operation’’
AGENCY: Department of Transportation
(DOT), Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document alerts the
public that the FAA intends to initiate
a rulemaking to address the exception
from FAA’s domestic, flag, and
supplemental operations regulations for
public charter operators. To inform this
effort, the FAA seeks public comment,
data, and other information regarding
current and planned public charter
flights operated under on-demand rules
that appear indistinguishable from
flights conducted by air carriers as
supplemental or domestic operations.

The FAA will review comments
received in response to this document to
evaluate the need for and, if necessary,
scope of any rulemaking.

DATES: Send comments on or before
October 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by docket number FAA–2023–1857
using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take
comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at 202–493–2251.

Docket: Background documents or
comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time.

Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket
Operations in Room W12–140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jackie Clow, Aviation Safety Inspector,
Air Transportation Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: (202) 267–8166; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to
provide comments, written data, views,
or arguments relating to this document.

Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. The
FAA will consider comments received
on or before the closing date. All
comments received will be available in
the docket for examination by interested
persons.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking
process. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy. You may review
DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, see 65 FR 19477, or you
may visit https://www.regulations.gov.

Background
Title 14 CFR part 380 is an economic
regulation administered by the
Department of Transportation.

Currently, under 14 CFR 110.2 of FAA’s
safety regulations, public charters
operated under the terms of 14 CFR part
380 may be conducted as ‘‘on-demand
operations’’ if the aircraft operator is
using airplanes, including turbo-jet
powered airplanes, with 30 or fewer
passenger seats. On-demand operations
must be conducted under the operating
rules in 14 CFR part 135. See, 14 CFR
119.21(a)(5) and 135.1(a)(1). Similarly,
public charter operations are excepted
from the § 110.2 definition of
‘‘scheduled operation’’ and are included
in the definition of ‘‘supplemental
operation’’ regardless of whether such
operator offers in advance to the public
the departure location, departure time,
and arrival location of the flight. But for
the part 380 exceptions in § 110.2,
public charter operators would be
required to comply with the operating
rules applicable to their operations
based on the same criteria as all other
air carriers and commercial operators,
i.e., 14 CFR part 121.

The FAA intends to initiate a
rulemaking to amend title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 110
to address these public charter
operations that, in light of recent highvolume operations, appear to be offered to the public as essentially
indistinguishable from flights
conducted by air carriers as
supplemental or domestic operations
under 14 CFR part 121. Specifically, the
size, scope, frequency, and complexity
of charter operations conducted as ‘‘ondemand’’ operations under the part 135 operating rules has grown significantly
over the past 10 years. While the FAA
has adjusted its oversight of these
increased operations, the FAA is
considering whether a regulatory change
may be appropriate to ensure the
management of the level of safety
necessary for those operations.

The FAA is considering issuing a
notice of proposed rulemaking that will
seek comment on removing the
exceptions for part 380 public charter
operators from the definitions in 14 CFR
110.2 and delink FAA’s safety
regulations from DOT’s economic
regulations. If the FAA were to remove
the exceptions, operators would then
conduct public charter flights under the
operating part applicable to their
operation based on the same criteria that
apply to all other non-part 380
operators, including the size and
complexity of aircraft they operate and
the frequency of flights.

Were FAA to amend its regulatory
framework, some operators conducting
public charter operations would need to
transition from operating under part 135
to part 121. This transition may require
affected operators to adjust their service
models. As such, this document solicits
comment, data, and other information
regarding: the effects of any removal of
the part 380 exception (including any
effect on service to small and
underserved communities); potential
impacts on competition, innovation,
and emerging technologies; alternative
regulatory structures that could apply to
the provision of commercial passenger
services under a regime other than part
121 or part 135; if FAA were to adopt
a rule, the reasonable period of time
needed to allow affected operators to
obtain appropriate certificates and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Aug 28, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM 29AUP1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 59481 authorizations to transition their
operations to the applicable operating
parts of 14 CFR; and any additional
topics interested parties believe should
be considered.

The FAA will review all comments
submitted to inform its planned
rulemaking.

Issued on August 24, 2023.

David H. Boulter,
Acting Associate Administrator, Aviation
Safety, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023–18615 Filed 8–28–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 1120
[Docket No. FDA–2013–N–0227]
RIN 0910–AH91
Proposed Requirements for Tobacco
Product Manufacturing Practice;
Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
extending the comment period for the
proposed rule entitled ‘‘Requirements
for Tobacco Product Manufacturing
Practice’’ published in the Federal
Register of March 10, 2023, by 30 days.

The Agency is taking this action in
response to a request for an extension to
allow interested persons additional time
to submit comments.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment
period on the proposed rule published
March 10, 2023 (88 FR 15174), by 30
days. Either electronic or written
comments must be submitted by
October 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be
considered. The https://
www.regulations.gov electronic filing
system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of
October 6, 2023. Comments received by
mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/
paper submissions) will be considered
timely if they are received on or before
that date.

Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.

Comments submitted electronically,
including attachments, to https://
www.regulations.gov will be posted to
the docket unchanged. Because your
comment will be made public, you are
solely responsible for ensuring that your
comment does not include any
confidential information that you or a
third party may not wish to be posted,
such as medical information, your or
anyone else’s Social Security number, or
confidential business information, such
as a manufacturing process. Please note
that if you include your name, contact
information, or other information that
identifies you in the body of your
comments, that information will be
posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
• If you want to submit a comment
with confidential information that you
do not wish to be made available to the
public, submit the comment as a
written/paper submission and in the
manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper
Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’).

Written/Paper Submissions
Submit written/paper submissions as
follows:
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for
written/paper submissions): Dockets
Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments
submitted to the Dockets Management
Staff, FDA will post your comment, as
well as any attachments, except for
information submitted, marked and
identified, as confidential, if submitted
as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket No. FDA–
2013–N–0227 for ‘‘Requirements for
Tobacco Product Manufacturing
Practice.’’ Received comments, those
filed in a timely manner (see
ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as
‘‘Confidential Submissions,’’ publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, 240–402–7500.
• Confidential Submissions—To
submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be
made publicly available, submit your
comments only as a written/paper
submission. You should submit two
copies total. One copy will include the
information you claim to be confidential
with a heading or cover note that states
‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ The
Agency will review this copy, including
the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The
second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information
redacted/blacked out, will be available
for public viewing and posted on
https://www.regulations.gov. Submit
both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and
contact information to be made publicly
available, you can provide this
information on the cover sheet and not
in the body of your comments and you
must identify this information as
‘‘confidential.’’ Any information marked
as ‘‘confidential’’ will not be disclosed
except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20
and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA’s posting
of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access
the information at: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-
09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or the
electronic and written/paper comments
received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the
heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Dockets Management
Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, 240–402–7500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Brenner, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug
Administration, Document Control
Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD
20993, 877–287–1373,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Federal Register of March 10, 2023 (88
FR 15174), FDA published a proposed
rule entitled ‘‘Requirements for Tobacco
Product Manufacturing Practice.’’ The
proposed rule provided a 180-day
period for submission of public
comments.

The Agency has received a request for
an extension of the comment period for
the proposed rule. The request
conveyed concern that the comment
period does not allow sufficient time to
develop a meaningful or thoughtful
response to the proposed rule.

FDA has considered the request and
is extending the comment period for the
proposed rule for 30 days, until October
6, 2023. FDA believes this extension is
appropriate because of the complexity
of the material being posted. The
Agency believes that a 30-day extension
allows adequate time for interested
persons to submit comments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Aug 28, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM 29AUP1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 1 As discussed below, VNY is a federally-obligated general aviation airport which does not hold an airport operating certificate issued under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139. 2 A “scheduled operation” is currently defined as “any common carriage passenger-carrying operation for compensation or hire conducted by an air carrier or commercial operator for which the certificate holder or its representative offers in advance the departure location, departure time, and arrival location. It does not include any passenger-carrying operation that is conducted as a public charter operation under part 380.” 14 C.F.R. § 110.2.

LAX
Van Nuys
City of Los Angeles
Karen Bass
Mayor
Board of Airport
Commissioners
Karim Webb
President
Matthew M. Johnson
Vice President
Vanessa Aramayo
Courtney La Bau
Victor Narro
Nicholas P. Roxborough
Valeria C. Velasco
Beatrice Hsu
Interim Chief Executive
Officer
October 13, 2023
Mr. David H. Boulter
Associate Administrator, Aviation Safety
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20591
RE: FAA Request for Comments Regarding Revisions to the Regulatory Definitions of “On-Demand Operation,” “Supplemental Operation,” and “Scheduled Operation;” Docket No. FAA-2023-1857
Dear Associate Administrator Boulter,
Los Angeles World Airports (“LAWA”), the owner and operator of the Los Angeles International Airport (“LAX”) and Van Nuys Airport1
(“VNY”), appreciates this opportunity
to comment on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) potential rulemaking to revise the above-referenced regulatory definitions. LAWA urges the FAA to move forward expeditiously with this proposed rulemaking. As explained below, the exemption of public charter operations from the definition of a “scheduled operation”2 results in a regulatory loophole that allows public charter operators to avoid safety requirements applicable to other scheduled passenger service and has generated considerable confusion regarding the airports at which public charter operators may lawfully occur and the manner in which they must be accommodated. The FAA should align its regulatory definitions with reality: public charter operations are, in every practical sense, scheduled passenger-carrying operations and should be held to the same level of safety as other scheduled operations.

LAWA focuses its comments on two important facets of the potential rulemaking that should be addressed in any forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: (1) regularly scheduled public charter operators should only be permitted to operate at airports which have an airport operating certificate; and (2) at such certificated airports, airport sponsors must retain the flexibility to accommodate public charter operators in a manner that best ensures the safety, efficiency, and financial integrity of the airport, and the comfort and convenience of its customers.

1. Public charter operations should be permitted to operate only at airports which have been issued an airport operating certificate.

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 3 Certain airports in Alaska are exempt from these requirements. 4 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Commuter Airports Should Participate in the Airport Certification Program (Nov. 1987), at https://www.gao.gov/assets/rced-88-41.pdf; National Transportation Safety Board, Commuter Airline Safety at 92–93 (Nov. 1994). 5 Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-264 § 404 (Oct. 9, 1996). 6 69 Fed. Reg. 6,380 (Feb. 10, 2004).
7 Id. at 6,419–20.

Under existing law, scheduled operations using aircraft designed for more than nine seats may only occur at a “certificated airport,” which is an airport that has been issued an airport operating certificate pursuant to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139.3 Thus, were the FAA to include public charter operations within the definition of a scheduled operation, public charter operations would be clearly limited to certificated airports. LAWA supports this result for three reasons: (i) it would hold public charter operators to the same safety standards as any other scheduled passenger service; (ii) it is consistent with existing law; and (iii) it respects an airport proprietor’s choice as to whether or not to accommodate scheduled passenger service at its airports – all as Congress intended.

A. Public charter should be held to the same level of safety as other scheduled operations.

Congress and the FAA have long recognized that airports must satisfy certain minimum standards to most safely accommodate the unique needs of commercial passenger-carrying operations. Initially, the FAA’s statutory authority to establish minimum safety standards for the operation of airports was limited to those which served passenger aircraft with more than 30 seats. But, in response to a series of incidents and resulting investigations involving smaller commuter aircraft,
4 the FAA sought and obtained a significant expansion of its statutory authority.5
In 2004, the FAA finalized a rulemaking that substantially overhauled Part 139, Certification of Airports.
6 For the first time, the FAA’s rule required airports that desired to serve (or continue serving) scheduled operations in aircraft designed for more than nine seats to obtain an airport operating certificate, and prohibited scheduled carriers from serving a non-certificated airport. The FAA has detailed scores of safety benefits resulting from this rulemaking.7
In the years since, the FAA has revised Part 139 on several occasions to improve the safety of commercial passenger aviation.

Like any other scheduled passenger-carrying operation, public charter operators should be required to operate only at those airports that have been issued an airport operating certificate. From the perspective of the general public, there is little functional difference between booking travel on a commercial airline and booking travel with a public charter operator. But differences in the level of safety and security between these two business models may be myriad. While other commenters have appropriately emphasized key distinctions between the operations of on-demand and scheduled carriers, such as required crew training, rest times, and safety management systems, the FAA should also consider the differences in the airports each business model is permitted to serve. There is no justification for denying public charter customers the safety benefits of Part 139 simply Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 8 49 U.S.C. § 41104(b). There are exceptions from this prohibition for the State of Alaska and in other circumstances that are not implicated by the FAA’s proposed rulemaking or LAWA’s comments.
9 Id. § 41104(b)(2).
10 LAWA’s counsel requested clarification from the Assistant General Counsel for the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, Blane A. Workie, by letter dated July 17, 2023. 11 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(2).
because they have chosen to fly with a carrier that has opted for a non-traditional business model.

B. Existing law prohibits public charter operations at non-certificated airports.

Limiting public charter operations to certificated airports is not only sound safety policy, but LAWA believes it is also what Congress has already directed.

After expanding the FAA’s authority to issue airport operating certificates, but before the FAA’s 2004 update to Part 139, Congress adopted the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR-21”). Now codified at Section 41104(b), AIR21 provided:
[A]n air carrier, including an indirect air carrier, may not provide, in aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats, regularly scheduled charter air transportation, for which the public is provided in advance a schedule containing the departure location, departure time, and arrival location of the flight, to or from an airport that . . . does not have an airport operating certificate issued under part 139 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.8 Congress defined “regularly scheduled charter air transportation” for the purposes of Section 41104(b) only by what it is not: “operations for which the departure time, departure location, and arrival location are specifically negotiated with the customer or the customer’s representative.”9
VNY is served by several public charter operators using aircraft with more than nine seats.

As these public charter operators appear to be operating at VNY in flagrant disregard of Section 41104(b), LAWA recently requested they explain the legality of their operations.

One public charter operator responded by claiming Section 41104(b) does not apply to it.

LAWA has asked the U.S. Department of Transportation (“U.S. DOT”) to confirm whether the public charter operator’s explanation reflects the official position of the U.S. DOT, but has not yet received a response.10 But, in any event, LAWA believes Section 41104(b) clearly prohibits regularly scheduled public charter operations at non-certificated airports today, even without any change to FAA regulations.

First, Section 41104(b)’s prohibition extends to “an air carrier, including an indirect air carrier.” An “air carrier” is broadly defined as any “citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.”11 An air taxi operator or Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 12 14 C.F.R. § 298.3(a).
13 See, e.g., Letter from R. Jackson to Congressman R. Woodall dated April 21, 2015 (“[A]n air ambulance operator . . . that holds DOT economic authority to operate as a registered air taxi under 14 CFR Part 298 and an FAA air carrier operating certificate under 14 CFR Part 135, is an ‘air carrier’ for purposes of the ADA preemption provision [codified at 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b).”), at https://perma.cc/8743-8QC9. 14 14 C.F.R. § 380.2.
15 See, e.g., Young v. UPS, 575 U.S. 206, 226 (2015) (“We have long held that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause is rendered superfluous, void, or insignificant.”) (cleaned up).
16 Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. & Ohio R.R., 331 U.S. 519, 528–29 (1947). commuter air carrier plainly falls within this definition; indeed, the U.S. DOT’s regulations expressly establish air taxi operators and commuter air carrier as specific classifications of “air carrier.”12 Moreover, the U.S. DOT has routinely interpreted other statutory language generally applicable to “air carriers” as applying to air taxi operators and commuter air carriers.13
Second, Section 41104(b)’s prohibition expressly includes “an indirect air carrier.” The U.S.

DOT specifically defines a public charter operator as an indirect air carrier authorized to engage in the formation of groups for public charters.14 Further, we are not aware of a situation in which the U.S. DOT would issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to an indirect air carrier. Interpreting Section 41104(b) to apply only to air carriers which have been issued such a certificate would therefore render the phrase “including an indirect air carrier” a nullity, contrary to well established canons of statutory construction.15 Third, the only explanation offered by the public charter operator in its response to LAWA was that the title of Section 41104, which contains several statutory limitations other than that codified at subsection (b), is “Additional limitations and requirements of charter air carriers.” The operator argued the term “charter air carrier” is defined as “an air carrier holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity that authorizes it to provide charter air transportation” and, since they hold no such certificate, none of the provisions codified under Section 41104 should apply to them. But the term “charter air carrier” is not used in Section 41104(b) and it is well-established that “the title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text.”16 The “plain meaning” of Section 41104(b) clearly prohibits regularly scheduled public charter operations using aircraft designed for more than nine passenger seats at airports like VNY.

LAWA recognizes that Section 41104(b) is administered by the U.S. DOT and generally outside the scope of the FAA’s potential rulemaking. LAWA intends to continue its outreach to the U.S. DOT regarding Section 41104(b) and take appropriate action if it is determined that those regularly scheduled charter operations today occurring at VNY are unlawful. But the FAA need not wait. LAWA urges the FAA to move forward expeditiously and hold regularly scheduled public charter to the same standards as any other scheduled operation, thereby giving effect to Congress’ clear directive to limit regularly scheduled public charter operations to certificated airports.

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 17 49 U.S.C. § 44706(b) (emphasis added). 18 Id. § 44706(f). 19 69 Fed. Reg. at 6,417.
20 For example, one popular public charter operator filed litigation in federal court regarding accommodation disputes at the Westchester County Airport and the John Wayne Airport.

C. Airport proprietors and their communities should be afforded the choice of whether or not to accommodate scheduled public charter operations.

Any regulatory loophole which allows regularly scheduled public charter to operate at noncertificated airports is also inconsistent with the statutory framework that affords airport proprietors a choice of whether or not to seek an airport operating certificate and, therefore, whether to accommodate scheduled operations.

Federal law does not require an airport proprietor to obtain an airport operating certificate.

Rather, the FAA may “issue an airport operating certificate to a person desiring to operate an airport” that serves scheduled operations.17 Congress could not have been clearer that this choice was committed solely to an airport proprietor’s discretion: “Nothing in [Title 49] may be construed as requiring a person to obtain an airport operating certificate if such person does not desire to operate an airport described in subsection [44706](a).”18 Indeed, in promulgating the 2004 revisions to Part 139, the FAA made clear that only airports “that want to continue to serve” scheduled operations with aircraft over nine seats need apply for an airport operating certificate.19
LAWA has determined not to pursue Part 139 certification for VNY, but public charter operators – which for all practical purposes are scheduled passenger-carrying operations – have nevertheless asserted a right to operate at VNY, citing their current regulatory classification as “on-demand” operations. Again, LAWA believes regularly scheduled public charter is already prohibited under existing law, but the FAA should eliminate any uncertainty by including public charter operations within the definition of “scheduled” operations. Prohibiting scheduled public charter at non-certificated airports allows airport proprietors such as LAWA to retain their discretion as to whether to accommodate scheduled operations.

2. Regardless of whether the FAA modifies its regulatory definitions, the FAA should make clear that the definitions have no bearing on accommodation issues.

The regulatory classification of public charter operators has also led to considerable confusion (and, in some cases, contentious litigation) regarding their accommodation at federally-obligated airports.20 Regardless of whether and how the FAA modifies its regulatory definitions, the FAA should make clear that the definitions set forth at 14 C.F.R.

Section 110.2 are intended only to establish the FAA certification and operating rules applicable to different categories of air carriers, and do not bind airport sponsors with respect Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 21 FAA, Airport Improvement Program Assurances ¶ 22(a). 22 Id. ¶ 22(e).
23 Id. ¶ 22(h).
24 Id. ¶ 24.
to their proprietary decisions about how best to accommodate public charter and other kinds of operations (where they may lawfully occur).

Sponsors of federally-obligated airports must make their airports available “on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport.”21 With respect to air carriers, the Airport Improvement Program (“AIP”) grant assurances provide:

Each air carrier using such airport (whether as a tenant, non-tenant, or subtenant of another air carrier tenant) shall be subject to such nondiscriminatory and substantially comparable rules, regulations, conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges with respect to facilities directly and substantially related to providing air transportation as are applicable to all such air carriers which make similar use of such airport and utilize similar facilities, subject to reasonable classifications such as tenants or non-tenants and signatory carriers and non-signatory carriers. Classification or status as tenant or signatory shall not be unreasonably withheld by any airport provided an air carrier assumes obligations substantially similar to those already imposed on air carriers in such classification or status.22 Airport sponsors are also permitted to “establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport,”23 and must “maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible.”24
Within the parameters established by these grant assurances, airport sponsors often distinguish between private charter and scheduled airline service in airport rules and regulations to ensure operational efficiency, appropriate security, financial integrity, and a positive and consistent experience for airport customers. For example, some airport sponsors may require scheduled airline operations to operate out of an airport terminal (and levy fees commensurate with such operations) while requiring private charter to use an airport’s fixed-base operator facilities.

However, an airport sponsor’s rules and regulations and policies do not necessarily align with the FAA’s existing regulatory classification of public charter as an “on-demand” operation. For example, LAWA’s existing rules and regulations for LAX provide, “No air Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 25 LAWA, Rules and Regulations ¶ 15.1.1, at https://perma.cc/BV7D-KX5Q. carrier shall operate scheduled service unless in possession of a valid LAX Air Carrier Operating Permit (ACOP).”25
The FAA should make clear that an operation’s regulatory classification for FAA purposes has no bearing on an airport sponsors’ authority to make reasonable classifications among different types of air carriers for legitimate proprietary reasons. For example, regardless of the FAA’s regulatory classification, airport sponsors should be expressly permitted to establish rules governing the use of airport facilities which are based upon the public-facing character of particular operations or their operational requirements, even if, for the airport’s purposes, some “on-demand” operations are treated as “scheduled.” In particular, the FAA has previously recognized an airport sponsor’s proprietary interest in managing where certain operations may occur on its airport and establishing appropriate rates and charges to recover costs incidental to aeronautical operations. Airport sponsors must consider a variety of factors in making these decisions, including the capability of airport facilities to accommodate secure or non-secure operations, mitigating airside and landside congestion, contractual obligations to other aeronautical operators, impacts on revenue generation, and the safety and comfort of airport customers. Flexibility is particularly important in light of many public charter operators’ desire to operate non-sterile or under the Transportation Security Administration’s Twelve-Five Standard Security Program. The potential that unscreened passengers may be flying to an airport to connect to flights operated from sterile areas of the airport – and vice versa – raises a host of operational issues that airport sponsors must resolve.

The FAA should clarify that the definitions of “on-demand” and “scheduled” operations are intended only to address the level of certification required by the FAA, and expressly recognize that airport sponsors may legitimately distinguish among commercial aircraft operators that make different uses of the airport, consistent with its grant assurance obligations.

Sincerely,
Beatrice Hsu
Interim Chief Executive Officer
BH:SB:os

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) October 13, 2023
Mr. David H. Boulter
Associate Administrator, Aviation Safety
Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Docket Operations (M-30)
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20590-0001
RE: Request for Comments Regarding Revisions to the Regulatory Definitions of “On-Demand Operation”, “Supplemental Operation”, and “Scheduled Operation” – Docket Number FAA-2023-1857 Dear Associate Administrator Boulter:

As the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) initiates its rulemaking to address the exception from FAA’s domestic, flag, and supplemental operations regulations for public charter operators, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) offers this letter to express comments on the topic.

The SDCRAA supports the FAA proceeding with a notice of proposed rulemaking removing the exceptions for Part 380 public charter operators from the definitions in 14 CFR 110.2. As the Federal Register notice explains, “if the FAA were to remove the exceptions, operators would then conduct public charter flights under the operating part applicable to their operation based on the same criteria that apply to all other nonPart 380 operators.” Due to the significant increase in charter operations that, as again noted in the Federal Register notice, are “essentially indistinguishable from flights conducted by air carriers as supplemental or domestic operations under 14 CFR part 121”, it is important that the FAA make modifications to ensure that such operations are not treated differently than air carrier operations under Part 121 at public-use airports in the United States.

Airports have scarce physical and financial resources such that it would be difficult to design and construct infrastructure that would be unique to public charter operators.

An airport’s proprietary rights in using its facilities in the most efficient way should be respected regardless of how the FAA decides to classify these carriers. If public charters are to be operated from an airport’s terminal infrastructure, this infrastructure was Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg)

Page 2 of 2 ends

designed to ensure compliance with federal security requirements and not designed for an air service paradigm where security could be bypassed. Additionally, all air carriers utilizing airport terminal infrastructure should be treated similarly as it pertains to rates, fees, and charges for the use of such facilities.

The SDCRAA looks forward to further steps in the FAA’s proposed rulemaking and will provide further comments as necessary in the proceeding.

Sincerely,
Kimberly J. Becker
President/CEO
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Molly A. Wilkinson
Vice President/Head – Regulatory and International Affairs October 13, 2023
David H. Boulter
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Re: Docket FAA-2023-1857 – Request for Comments Regarding Regulatory Definitions of OnDemand Operation, Supplemental Operation, and Scheduled Operation Dear Associate Administrator Boulter:

American Airlines, Inc. (American) commends the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for its intent to undertake rulemaking to address public charter operations authorized under 14 CFR part 380 that are conducted under the operating rules of 14 CFR part 135. As the FAA develops a proposed rule, American offers the following points for consideration.

FAA Regulations Should Not Be Gamed: American shares the FAA’s concern regarding public charter operations that “appear to be offered to the public as essentially indistinguishable from flights conducted by air carriers as supplemental or domestic operations under 14 CFR part 121.” 88 Fed. Reg. 59480 (Aug. 29, 2023). These public charter operations sell individual tickets on pre-scheduled flights operated under Part 135, amounting to “scheduled charter” service that provides a facsimile of the common carriage scheduled service that Part 121 air carriers offer. Tickets for such flights can be found in search results on widely used online travel booking platforms, alongside offerings by Part 121 airlines.

One scheduled charter operator claimed recently that, as compared to Part 121 air carriers, it has “built a better mousetrap” by exploiting the exception for public charter operators under existing FAA regulations for domestic, flag, and supplemental operations. FAA regulations are not a game to be outwitted, and an exception that encourages such a mindset deserves reconsideration.

These Operations Are Becoming More Prevalent: The scheduled charter phenomenon is concerning in light of what the FAA correctly recognizes is the emergence of “high-volume operations” that have grown in “size, scope, frequency, and complexity” as they exploit Part 380 to provide scheduled charter service under Part 135. Id. Our review of DOT data indicates that the number of scheduled charter operators has grown from ten in 2013 to forty-four in 2022. DOT data further reflect that the number of approved scheduled charter flights grew from approximately 6,000 in 2013 to about 106,000 in 2022—roughly a seventeen-fold increase. Unlike scheduled charter operations that connect underserved markets through Small Community Air Service programs, some scheduled charter operations have proliferated in markets otherwise served by Part 121 air carriers, drawing competitive advantage through leveraging less stringent regulatory requirements for Part 135 operations. Per DOT data, in 2014 only about 2% of passengers in Part 135 operations traveled on flights between larger cities (defined as flights between a city that includes at least one large hub airport and a city with at least one large hub or medium hub airport, as defined by the FAA). By the first quarter of 2023—as the scheduled charter model emerged—that proportion grew to 31%. According to DOT data, in the first quarter of 2023, the single highest-volume scheduled charter operator flew 70% of its passengers between larger cities (defined the same way as above), with virtually complete overlap of these routes with the availability of nonstop regularly scheduled service by Part 121 air carriers.

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Molly A. Wilkinson
Vice President/Head – Regulatory and International Affairs Aviation Security Architecture Is Being Undermined: Although some scheduled charter service operates from airport terminals where passengers are screened through a traditional Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint, that is not currently a requirement. Scheduled charter passengers also are not required to pay the TSA’s security fee. This security posture for scheduled charter is not an incidental byproduct, but rather it is actively marketed to customers and acknowledged as integral to the business model.

The misuse of the exception for public charter operators under existing FAA regulations for domestic, flag, and supplemental operations distorts competition and degrades our nation’s aviation system. It is appropriate that, as the FAA previews, “some operators conducting public charter operations would need to transition from operating under part 135 to part 121” and “adjust their service models.” Id. American appreciates the FAA’s stewardship and encourages the FAA to pursue this rulemaking expeditiously.

Sincerely,
Molly A. Wilkinson
Vice President/Head - Regulatory Affairs and International Affairs American Airlines, Inc.

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Andrew Watterson
Chief Operating Officer
2702 Love Field Drive
Dallas, TX 75235
October 2, 2023
Mr. David H. Boulter
Associate Administrator, Aviation Safety
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20591
Re: Request for Comments Regarding Regulatory Definitions of OnDemand Operation, Supplemental Operation, and Scheduled Operation, Docket FAA-2023-1857
Dear Associate Administrator Boulter,
Southwest Airlines (Southwest) supports the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review of its current rules and practices that permit certain scheduled passenger airlines to avoid compliance with 14 CFR Part 121 (Part 121), the FAA’s highest level of safety regulations, which all other scheduled passenger airlines that operate aircraft with greater than nine seats must meet.
1 This so-called “public charter loophole” should be
closed swiftly, and the safety of flying public and flight crew members should be the FAA’s only consideration. We urge the FAA to take all steps necessary to expeditiously close the “public charter loophole” and return to the One Level of Safety principle for all passenger airlines operating a published schedule and using aircraft with ten or more seats.

I. The FAA Committed to “One Level of Safety” for Scheduled Passenger Operations in 1995, but Inexplicably Changed Course Two Years Later by Creating a Carve-out for Part 380 Operations.

Bringing all scheduled passenger operations into compliance with Part 121 – the gold standard in aviation safety2 – is essential for public safety and expected by the traveling public. In 1995, both the Department of Transportation (DOT) and FAA established the One Level of Safety principle for all scheduled passenger operations using aircraft with 10 or more seats by requiring all such operations to be conducted under 1 This letter is in response to the FAA’s Request for Comments, 88 Fed. Reg. 59480, August 29, 2023. 2 The FAA has repeatedly recognized that Part 121 regulations represent the highest level of aviation safety and that all passenger airlines operating in scheduled service with greater than 10 seats are expected to meet the same minimum standards. See e.g., then-FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt’s testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee (June 10, 2009).

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Associate Administrator Boulter
October 2, 2023

Page 2 ends

Part 121.3 Known as the “Commuter Rule,” this common-sense approach assured all airline passengers and crew that their air carrier would be required to meet the FAA’s most rigorous safety standards whether operating 30-seat, 50-seat, or 150-seat aircraft.

The FAA articulated numerous reasons how this rule would enhance flight safety and summarized the basis of the new rule as follows: “There is no longer any justification for maintaining two sets of standards for scheduled operations in airplanes with a passengerseating configuration of 10 or more seats. When a passenger pays for a ticket on an FAA certificated commuter operation, that passenger must be assured of the highest possible level of safety.”
4 The government’s commitment to One Level of Safety was inexplicitly abdicated in 1997, however, when the FAA removed flights operated under Part 380 public charter rules from the definition of “scheduled operations.”5 The FAA made this change via a rulemaking that it called “mostly editorial or typographical in nature.”6 The effect of this “clarification” was to categorically allow all Part 380 flights to operate under FAR Part 135 – even those that provide scheduled service to the public (i.e., sell seats to individually ticketed passengers from a published flight schedule with specified departure and arrival times, and departure and arrival locations) as “public charters.” This exemption was made without regard to the scale of operations, geographical scope, or frequency of such service. The Final Rule and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that came before it provide no substantive justification for such a sweeping, categorical exemption. This change was in stark contrast to the FAA’s 1995 One Level of Safety rule that was based on an exhaustive analysis of flight safety data and the expected public benefits of upgrading safety requirements for commuter operations. The blanket exemption for public charter operators is especially baffling given that DOT’s Part 380 public charter regulations are purely economic in nature. Part 380 has no safety component and therefore cannot substitute for, nor justify an exemption from, an FAA safety regulation.

It is important to put the FAA’s creation of this blanket exemption for public charters in the proper historical context. In 1997, when the FAA was finalizing changes to the 3See “Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements,” 60 Fed. Reg. 65,832 (Dec. 20, 1995). This rule followed a 1994 NTSB study and congressional scrutiny of Part 135 carriers’ safety records.
4 60 Fed. Reg. 65,835-36.
5 In 1997, the FAA amended the definitions section of 14 CFR Part 119 removing public charter operations conducted under 14 CFR Part 380 from the definition of “scheduled operations.” 62 Fed. Reg. 13,248 (March 19, 1997).
6 62 Fed. Reg. 5077 (Feb. 3, 1997). We doubt that such an “editorial or typographical” proposal could have been intended at the time to create a wholesale exemption from Part 121 safety standards for an entire category of air transport operations.

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Associate Administrator Boulter
October 2, 2023

Page 3 ends

Commuter Rule, public charters were in their infancy as an air travel option – so much so that the dubious “editorial clarification" that created the blanket exemption was noncontroversial among stakeholders. There was no substantive discussion of the implications of such a definitional change in the rulemaking and no comments were even filed in response to it.
7 Importantly, there was no indication whatsoever in 1997 that such an obscure “clarification” would become a gaping regulatory loophole which would allow today’s large and growing public charter segment, particularly flights operated with aircraft of 10-30 seats, to operate at lower levels of safety than all other scheduled air services.

According to DOT data, the number of public charter flights with 30 or fewer seats increased from 2,078 in CY 2008 (the earliest year in DOT’s database) to 189,075 in CY 2022, an increase of more than 9,000%.
8 Further, as new carriers and their investors look to enter the market or established carriers alter business models for competitive, financial, or operational reasons, many of them will likely take advantage of this loophole, which will only reduce the safety of the U.S. aviation system. Such an outcome was not only unforeseen by the FAA but almost certainly unintended as well. Thus, the issuance of this Request for Comments and the FAA’s reevaluation of the blanket exemption is not only strongly warranted but in fact long overdue.

II. Although the FAA has Made Critical Strides in Improving Safety in Passenger Operations, Substantial Differences Remain Between Part 121 and Part 135 Safety Requirements.

In the 27 years since issuing its 1995 final rule, the FAA has made significant enhancements to Part 121 safety regulations, including requiring the use of Safety Management Systems (SMS),
9 as well as elevated requirements for training,
maintenance, and operations. Among these changes was the “1,500-hour rule,” which increased the minimum flight hours needed to earn an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) license from 250 hours to 1,500 hours. In Part 121 operations any pilot operating a flight must hold a current ATP license. Part 135 carriers are exempt from the majority of these critical safety regulations, including the 1,500-hour rule for first officers. Again, there is no sound reason why the traveling public should be unknowingly exposed to a lower level of safety simply because an operator has obtained public charter status and therefore is 7 The Final Rule states that “no comments were received on the proposed definitions and the changes…are adopted as proposed.” 62 Fed. Reg. 13248.
8 See https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/licensing/public-charters. 9 Southwest acknowledges that FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would require SMS for Part 135 operators. 88 Fed. Reg. 1932.

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Associate Administrator Boulter
October 2, 2023

Page 4 ends

permitted to operate on a scheduled basis utilizing pilots who are permitted to fly with far fewer training hours than those operating under Part 121.

Many other substantive differences exist between Parts 121 and 135 requirements that create a bifurcated system of safety in the current regulatory model. For example, Part 121 operators are required to have and maintain certificated flight dispatchers and dispatch centers to ensure proper operational control of each flight. Dispatchers working in concert with pilots to safely plan and operate flights creates an additional layer of safety that is not required for Part 135 carriers. Allowing Part 380 public charters to operate scheduled service without this safety enhancement is difficult to reconcile with the FAA’s findings in the 1995 final rule which stated as follows:

The FAA believes that the part 121 regulatory scheme for scheduled operations is more appropriate for the 10- to 30-seat scheduled operations.

The added safety features and requirements in Part 121 domestic/flag rules, including the dispatcher system, will increase safety for the affected commuters. Because most accidents are caused by human errors, rules such as the Part 121 training rules and the dispatcher system rules are some of the most valuable tools in reducing the number of these kinds of accidents.10
Part 121 also subjects carriers to stringent pilot rest requirements and requires carriers to develop and maintain systems to manage fatigue risk, including fatigue education and awareness programs. Part 135, in contrast, requires some level of rest periods for pilots, but fatigue management and education programs are not a requirement. Looking forward, Part 135 operators will be exempt from the proposed requirement for Part 121 operators to install a “secondary flightdeck barrier” between the cabin and flightdeck on newly manufactured aircraft,11 a requirement specifically directed by Congress and conceived in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks to enhance safety of all passengers and crew.

III. The Safety Data is Clear: Part 121 Operators Have a Much Lower Accident Rate than Part 135 Operators, Giving FAA Good Cause to Act Quickly to Close the Regulatory Loophole.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has published data that shows that Part 135 operators as a group have an inferior safety record to Part 121 carriers. For example, in 2021, the NTSB published an extensive compilation and analysis of accident 10 60 Fed. Reg. 65,835.
11 “Installation and Operation of Flightdeck Installed Physical Secondary Barriers on Transport Category Airplanes in Part 121 Service.” 87 Fed. Reg. 46,892
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Associate Administrator Boulter
October 2, 2023

Page 5 ends

and fatality rates for different categories of air carriers for the 20-year period from 2001 to 2020.12 According to the NTSB report, the accident rate per 100,000 flight hours for Part 135 operators over the 20-year period was more than 9 times greater than the accident rate for Part 121 scheduled operators over the same period. Further, the fatality rate from Part 135 operations was approximately 94 times greater than that of Part 121 carriers.13 These alarming differences in the safety records between Part 135 versus Part 121 air carriers make it even more urgent that the FAA promptly rescind the blanket exemption that allows Part 380 carriers with 10-30 seat aircraft to provide scheduled passenger service under Part 135 instead of Part 121.

It is worth noting that the FAA recognized a similar discrepancy in the safety data of Part 135 vs Part 121 operations when it promulgated its “one level of safety” rule in 1995. According to the FAA, “[t]he accident rate per 100,000 departures in 1993 was one fourth the accident rate in 1980. However, the accident rate for commuter airlines operating under part 135 continues to be higher than the rate for domestic part 121 airlines.”
14 Based on this safety data, the FAA correctly concluded “that the accident rate for affected commuters can be reduced to a level closer to that of current part 121 domestic operations by eliminating most of the regulatory differences that the two different regulatory schemes allowed.”15
In addition, a 1994 safety study by NTSB, titled “Commuter Airline Safety,”16 which was central in informing the FAA’s 1995 rulemaking, found that, at the time, the Part 135 industry had experienced unprecedented growth, changes in operational characteristics, and a move toward operating larger, more sophisticated aircraft. Part 135 carriers had also begun to enter into codeshare agreements with Part 121 airlines. The NTSB concluded that Part 135 regulations did not provide an adequate level of safety for the size and scope of these operations. Moreover, NTSB found that the lack of a flight dispatch function placed too much pressure on Part 135 pilots to accomplish multiple critical dispatch tasks in a short period of time which increased the risk for human error that could directly impact flight safety. In the FAA’s 1995 NPRM, two key NTSB recommendations are cited:
12 See https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/data/Documents/AviationAccidentRates_2001-2020_20211014.xlsx. (NTSB Accident/Fatality Report).
13 NTSB Accident/Fatality Report, Comparing table Six, “Accidents, Fatalities, and Rates, 2001 through 2020, for US Air Carriers Operating Under 14 CFR 121, Scheduled Service,” and Nine, “Accidents, Fatalities, and Rates, 2001 through 2020, for US Air Carriers Operating Under 14 CFR 135, On-Demand Operations” (the category used by FAA for Part 380 Operations). 14 60 Fed. Reg. at 65,833.
15 60 Fed. Reg. at 65,835-36.
16 NTSB Safety Study, “Commuter Airline Safety,” November, 1994.

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Associate Administrator Boulter
October 2, 2023

Page 6 ends

1. All scheduled passenger service conducted in airplanes with 20 or more passenger seats would be conducted according to the provisions of 14 CFR part 121.

2. All scheduled passenger service conducted in airplanes with 10 to 19 passenger seats would be conducted in accordance with 14 CFR part 121, or its functional equivalent, wherever possible.

Based on NTSB’s recommendations, evaluation of accidents that had occurred involving Part 135 operations, and public perception, the FAA proposed its 1995 rule for aircraft with 10-30 seats. Omitting aircraft with nine seats or less from the requirement made sense as most of those aircraft could not meet the certification and equipment requirements of Part 121 in any event. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to:
apply much of the part 121 requirements on affected part 135 commuters because the agency believes that for those commuters the part 121 approach is appropriate for the type of operations these affected commuters conduct and that the part 121 approach to safety will reduce the accident rate for those operators. [Emphasis added.] The proposed revisions cumulatively would increase the level of safety by requiring certain improvements in flightcrew qualifications, cabin safety equipment and cabin materials, airplane preformance [sic] requirements, aircraft operational control, and aircraft maintenance.17
Now, in 2023, the FAA should apply the same logic as the Part 135 industry continues to evolve and grow. In order to provide the highest level of safety to the traveling public, it is imperative that the FAA return to the One Level of Safety principle, especially given the growth and evolution in Part 135 operations in the years since the Commuter Rule was proposed and finalized.

IV. The FAA Must End the “Legal Fiction” Created in the CFR Definition of “Scheduled Operation” and Establish a Clear Policy that the Highest Level of Safety will be Required for ALL Scheduled Passenger Airlines that Use Aircraft with More than Nine Seats.

At a minimum and with the aforementioned facts and arguments in mind, Southwest respectfully urges the FAA to conduct a formal rulemaking that will:

1. Amend the Definition of “Scheduled Operation” found in Section 110.2 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (Title 14) by striking the last sentence (i.e., “It does not include any passenger-carrying operation that is conducted as a public charter operation under part 380 of this title”). By striking this 17 60 Fed. Reg. 16,233.

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Associate Administrator Boulter
October 2, 2023

Page 7 ends

sentence, the FAA would end the legal fiction that classifies some scheduled operations as non-scheduled operations. This would not only advance safety but restore common sense and public expectations by matching the legal definition to reality. As the Air Line Pilots Association has correctly noted in a prior regulatory filing, “[i]f it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.”18 In this case, if a passenger airline offers in advance to the public the departure location, departure time, and arrival location of the flight, then it is a scheduled operation.

2. Amend Title 14 by inserting a new subsection that states unequivocally:
“Declaration of Policy.—Notwithstanding any other requirement in this chapter, it is the policy of the Federal Aviation Administration to uphold one level of safety for any common carriage passenger-carrying operation for compensation or hire conducted by an air carrier or commercial operator for which the certificate holder or its representative offers in advance the departure location, departure time, and arrival location, and uses an aircraft with a passenger-seat configuration of greater than 9 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, regardless of whether the operation is conducted under Part 380.”
V. Conclusion.

Southwest will never compromise on the issue of safety and, for this reason, urges the FAA to return to the fundamental One Level of Safety principle. Whether flying on an aircraft with 10 seats or 250 seats, the flying public deserves nothing less than to be assured of a consistent and rigorous level of aviation safety. Southwest urges the FAA to move quickly to take appropriate action so that there will never be a situation in the future where Congress and the public ask why the FAA failed to take action to protect the traveling public when it was possible to do so.

There is no reasoned basis for allowing different levels of safety among the nation’s scheduled passenger airlines, and the distinction that exists today is especially indefensible as there is no operational basis for it. The FAA should put an end to this arbitrary and historically unintended exemption by reaffirming the bedrock principle that all scheduled passenger carriers must adhere to the highest levels of safety. If the FAA declines to take that action, it will not only legitimize the lower level of safety that exists in public charter operations today, but it will also invite more carriers to adopt the same business model and scale it to larger and larger operations, resulting in an even more pervasive degradation of aviation safety. The FAA must not let that happen. 18 “ALPA Calls on DOT to Close Part 135 Loophole” (July 6, 2023).

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Associate Administrator Boulter
October 2, 2023

Page 8 ends

Sincerely,
_______________________
Andrew Watterson
Copy to:

The Honorable Polly Trottenberg, FAA
The Honorable Katie Thomson, FAA
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg)

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMEN TOF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC
_____________________________________________
)
In the matter of: )
) Docket No.: FAA-2023-1857
Notice of Intent to Consider Revisions to the )
Regulatory Definitions of “On-Demand )
Operation”, “Supplemental Operation” and )
“Scheduled Operation” )
__________________________________________)

COMMENT OF SOUTHWEST AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATION
The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (“SWAPA”) respectfully submits this Comment to the Federal Aviation Administration’s the Notice of Intent to Consider Revisions to the Regulatory Definitions of “On-Demand Operation”, Supplemental Operation” and “Scheduled Operation” [Dkt. No. FAA-2023-1857-0001].

SWAPA urges the Federal Aviation Administration to take action to eliminate the Part 380 public charter loophole. The use of this loophole undermines the safety and security standards established by the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of 2010 and goes against the stated goal of One Level of Safety.

Passengers traveling from towns like Pierre South Dakota should not be subject to a degraded level of safety just because they live and fly out of a small airport. Nor should they have to decode the fine print on a carrier’s website to determine what rules and level of safety they can expect.

If a carrier advertises, schedules, sells and operates scheduled service, it should operate as a scheduled carrier under Part 121 and adhere to the applicable safety and security standards mandated by the FAA.

Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) Eliminating this loophole will send a clear message that carriers seeking creative ways to skirt safety and security regulations need not apply. Inaction on this critical issue will serve as an endorsement of a lower level of safety and encourage carriers to establish or expand operations utilizing the loophole.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Casey Murray
Casey Murray

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES PILOTS

ASSOCIATION
1450 Empire Central Drive
Suite 737
Dallas, Texas 75247
Tel.: (214) 722-4256
[email protected]
/s/ Anthony U. Battista
Anthony U. Battista

CONDON & FORSYTH LLP
7 Times Square, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10036
Tel.: (212) 490-9100
[email protected]
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025
Item 4-B
October 14, 2025

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Written Comments (7362 : 4.B. Minutes - 9/30/25 reg mtg) 1 September 30, 2025
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 30, 2025
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Negrete at 5:36 p.m., on Tuesday, September 30, 2025, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Snell.

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is

4.C
Packet Pg. 103 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 30, 2025 5:35 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 September 30, 2025
(Mayor Pro Tem Torosis
arrived at 5:40 P.M.)
required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official.

Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well.

No Councilmembers recused themselves from any items on the agenda pursuant to the Levine Act.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR
CLOSED SESSION ONLY:
(Mayor Pro Tem Torosis was
excused at 6:29 p.m. and
returned at 6:32 p.m.)
No members of the public commented on Closed Session items.

CLOSED SESSIONS On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 6:43 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions and returned at 7:55 p.m., with all members present, to report the following:

5.A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Judith Delgado v. City; LASC # 24STCV08614 The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Nikima S. Newsome Lana Negrete
City Clerk Mayor

4.C
Packet Pg. 104 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 30, 2025 5:35 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 14, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.D
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Application for Grant Funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for the Riviera Reservoir Seismic Retrofit Project
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to apply for the grant, accept the grant, if awarded, and accept all grant renewals, if awarded.

Summary
The City of Santa Monica’s Water Resources Division aims to rehabilitate the City’s four water storage reservoirs over the next 5-6 years. These potable water storage reservoirs provide roughly 40 million gallons in storage capacity and range in age from 60 to over 100 years old. The City’s largest potable water reservoir, Riviera Reservoir, has a storage capacity of 25 million gallons and is a critical component in the City’s ability to meet day-to-day peak water demands, as well as provide storage for emergency response. The Riviera Reservoir is in need of rehabilitation and structural upgrades to maintain reliable service. Design is currently in progress to structurally reinforce the reservoir to align with current code and mitigate the risk of earthquake damage. Structural upgrades to retrofit the Riviera Reservoir are eligible for grant

4.D
Packet Pg. 105
2 of 4
funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Staff requests authorization to apply for grant funding to help offset the cost of rehabilitating the reservoir.

Discussion
The Riviera Reservoir was constructed in 1962 and is located beneath tennis courts at the Riviera Country Club. It is the City’s largest reservoir, accounting for over 60% of the City’s total water storage capacity. The Water Resources Division recently retained Stantec Consulting Services Inc. to perform a seismic assessment and structural analysis of the reservoir. The analysis found that structural components of the reservoir — including elements of the foundation, walls, and roof —need to be upgraded to meet current seismic standards outlined in the 2022 California Existing Building Code (CEBC). In addition, rehabilitation of the Riviera Reservoir must comply with standards set by the California Department of Water Resources – Division of Safety of Dams, given the size and capacity of the reservoir. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. is currently developing technical design drawings and specifications to rehabilitate and upgrade the Riviera Reservoir, along with the City’s other potable water storage reservoirs.

The seismic upgrades for the Riviera Reservoir currently in development are eligible for grant funding under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). HMGP provides up to 75 percent grant funding for projects that reduce the risk and impact of disasters such as wildfires, earthquakes, drought, and flooding. The current estimated cost of the project to rehabilitate the Riviera Reservoir is approximately $16,500,000. The grant amount being requested is approximately $8,200,000, with a local match of $8,300,000.

The matching funds would be available from the Water Enterprise Fund balance, which could include a future water revenue bond when design of the reservoir rehabilitation project is completed in 2026. Staff increased the local match percentage above the minimum grant requirements to increase the possibility of being selected for funding.

The funding strategy to rehabilitate the four potable water reservoirs was presented to City Council during the recently adopted five-year water and wastewater rate study.

4.D
Packet Pg. 106
3 of 4
Grant award is anticipated in 2027/2028, and construction is expected to begin in 2028/2029. The grant award schedule aligns with anticipated construction schedule for the Riviera Reservoir, to occur after the 2028 Olympics are completed, as the Riviera Country Club is hosting the Olympic golf event. The term of the grant is 48 months from grant execution. Ongoing operation costs would be paid out of the operating budget for the Water Fund.

At the September 30, 2025 City Council meeting, Councilmembers expressed concern that FEMA grants could be conditioned on the City agreeing to assist federal immigration enforcement or dismantling DEI programs. Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging such conditions on FEMA grants, including one in which the City is a Plaintiff (Santa Clara County v. Noem, 5:25-cv-08330-EJD (N.D. Cal.)). Staff expects the court will issue rulings well before the City would be required to execute a grant agreement for this project, if awarded, and that the court’s ruling will address whether the challenged conditions apply to this funding or not.

Environmental Review
Authorization of the application for grant funding from FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines which states that CEQA does not apply “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” If awarded, the use of the grant funding to structurally retrofit the Riviera Reservoir would be subject to environmental review at the time the project is proposed.

Therefore, the application for grand funding would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment and, as such, is exempt from CEQA.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
8/22/23 (Attachment A) Award RFP to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., for Water Reservoir Upgrades Engineering Design Services
3/25/25 (Attachment B) Five-Year Water and Wastewater Rate Study Session 6/10/25 (Attachment C) Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Establishing

4.D
Packet Pg. 107
4 of 4
Scheduled Five-Year Water Service Rate Adjustments
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks approval from City Council to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for grant funds, accept the grant, if awarded, and accept all grant renewals, if awarded from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. If the grant is awarded, staff would return to Council with budget changes including appropriation of funds for the local match of approximately $8.3 million (to be funded by either the Water Enterprise Fund and/or a water revenue bond) as part of one of the upcoming budget cycles.

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

A. August 22, 2023 Staff Report (Web Link)
B. March 25, 2025 Staff Report (Web Link)
C. June 10, 2025 Staff Report (Web Link)
D. Resolution - FEMA HMGP

4.D
Packet Pg. 108

Page 1 of 2 ends

City Council Meeting: October 28, 2025 Santa Monica, California

RESOLUTION NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT

PROGRAM AND TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH

THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY AND ANY AMENDMENTS

THERETO
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has allocated grant funding for projects pursuant to the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs aim to reduce the risk and impact of disasters such as wildfires, earthquakes, drought, and flooding; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to apply for grant funds for approximately $8,209,000 from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to support the rehabilitation of the Riviera Reservoir to enhance the resiliency of the City’s water supply infrastructure and safeguard it against natural disasters;
WHEREAS, the total estimated project cost is approximately $16.5 million and the City is applying for approximately $8,209,000 in grant funding and will provide matching funds for the balance of the project from the City’s Water Enterprise Fund, water revenue bond, and/or state/federal low interest loans to rehabilitate the Riviera Reservoir;

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

SECTION 1. The Recitals above are incorporated herein by this reference.

4.D.d
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Resolution - FEMA HMGP [Revision 5] (7050 : Resolution for Hazard Mitigation Grant Funding)

Page 2 of 2 ends

SECTION 2. The City of Santa Monica City Manager, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and file an application for funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and take such other actions necessary or appropriate to obtain grant funding.

SECTION 3. The City of Santa Monica City Manager, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to execute the funding agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and any amendments thereto.

SECTION 4. The City of Santa Monica City Manager, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to submit any required documents, invoices, and reports required to obtain grant funding.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution of the City Council, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

HEIDI VON TONGELN
Interim City Attorney

4.D.d
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Resolution - FEMA HMGP [Revision 5] (7050 : Resolution for Hazard Mitigation Grant Funding) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 14, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.E
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Matthew Hallock, Fire Chief, Fire Department
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution on the SB 1205 Annual Fire Inspection Report Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

Summary
California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4 requires that each fire department performing annual inspections under Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 submit an annual report to its administering authority (City Council) on its compliance. These sections mandate the Fire Department to conduct annual inspections of all public and private schools, hotels, motels, lodging houses, and all apartment and condominium buildings.

The purpose of the annual fire inspections is to mitigate known hazards, reduce risks to the community, and ensure reasonable compliance with the California Fire Code. The Fire Department completed annual fire inspections of these facilities for FY 2024-25. A resolution to accept the City’s FY 2024-25 annual fire inspections report is included as Attachment A.

Discussion
After the tragic 2016 “Ghost Ship Fire” in Oakland, the State of California enacted SB 1205 on September 27, 2018, to amend California Health and Safety Code by adding

4.E
Packet Pg. 111
2 of 3
Section 13146.4. This new section is a reporting requirement to ensure each fire department’s compliance with the annual inspections mandated in Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3. The Fire Department submits the FY 2024-25 annual fire inspections report to the City Council and a resolution acknowledging receipt of the report.

Acceptance of the report and the resolution fulfills the statutory requirements contained in California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2, 13146.3, and 13146.4, as amended by SB 1205.

The California Building Code also specifies that condominiums should be considered apartments for building code application. An apartment shall consist of three or more attached units and excludes all duplex-style buildings. In FY 2024-25, the Fire Department inspected 3,925 apartment/condominium buildings with three units or greater.

During FY 2024-25, the Fire Department conducted 4,103 state-mandated annual inspections under California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2, 13146.3, and 13146.4, as shown in the table below.

Occupancy
Type
Inspections
Completed
Total Number Percentage
Completed
Schools Public 44 44 100%
Schools Private 133 133 100%
Jails SMPD PSF 1 1 100%
Multi-Family
Residential Three Units + 3,925 3,925 100%
Total Inspections Completed 4,103
The Fire Department also conducted 4,079 other types of annual inspections shown in the table below.

Occupancy Type Inspections
Completed
Total
Number
Percentage
Completed
Assemblies, Institutions, Hospitals 264 268 98%

4.E
Packet Pg. 112
3 of 3
Highrise 82 82 100%
Underground Storage Tanks 34 34 100%
New Construction Plan Review and
Inspections 1,964 1,964 100%
Business and Mercantile 1,735 3,902 44%
Total Inspections Completed 4,079
Environmental Review
The reporting of Fire and Life safety annual inspections is not a “project” subject to CEQA. The reporting is administrative in nature and provides updates of SMFD annual inspections. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the reporting 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 the recommended action.

Prepared By: Jonathan Tang, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. RESO-Fire-Annual Fire Inspection Report 10.14.2025

4.E
Packet Pg. 113
1 City Council Meeting: October 14, 2025 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

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

ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A REPORT ON THE STATUS OF STATE

MANDATED ANNUAL FIRE INSPECTIONS IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 13146.4 WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4 was added in 2018, and became effective on September 27, 2018; and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 require all fire departments, including the Santa Monica Fire Department, that provide fire protection services to perform annual inspections in every building used as a public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging house, apartment house, and certain residential care facilities for compliance with building standards, as provided; and WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2 requires all fire departments, including the Santa Monica Fire Department, that provide fire protection services to report annually to its administering authority on its compliance with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica intends this Resolution to fulfill the requirements of the California Health & Safety Code regarding acknowledgment of the Santa Monica Fire Department’s compliance with California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.

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

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: RESO-Fire-Annual Fire Inspection Report 10.14.2025 [Revision 3] (7216 : SB1205 Annual Fire Inspection Report) 2 SECTION 1. Pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4(c), the City Council acknowledges receipt of the report of the Santa Monica Fire Department demonstrating compliance with Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 as follows:

A. EDUCATIONAL GROUP E OCCUPANCIES:

Educational Group E occupancies are generally those public and private schools, used by more than six persons at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade. Within the City of Santa Monica, there are 177 Group E occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities.

During the fiscal year 2024-25, the Santa Monica Fire Department completed the annual inspection of 177 Group E occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities.

This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period.

B. RESIDENTIAL GROUP R OCCUPANCIES:

Residential Group R occupancies are generally those occupancies containing sleeping units, and including hotels, motels, and apartments (three units or more), as well as other residential occupancies (including a number of residential care facilities).

These residential care facilities have a number of different sub- classifications, and they may contain residents that have a range of needs, including those related to custodial care, mobility impairments, cognitive disabilities, etc.

The residents may also be non-ambulatory or bedridden. Within the City of Santa Monica, there are 3,925 Group R occupancies including the associated sub-categories.

During the fiscal year 2024-25, the Santa Monica Fire Department completed the

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: RESO-Fire-Annual Fire Inspection Report 10.14.2025 [Revision 3] (7216 : SB1205 Annual Fire Inspection Report) 3 annual inspection of 3,925 Group R occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities.

This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period.

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

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: RESO-Fire-Annual Fire Inspection Report 10.14.2025 [Revision 3] (7216 : SB1205 Annual Fire Inspection Report) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 14, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.F
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Director of Transportation, Department of Transportation, Transit Planning & Performance
Subject: Award RFP #436 for Bus Stop Real-Time Signs to Papercast North America Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt findings of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15301, Section 15302, Section 15303, and Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

2. Award RFP# 436 to Papercast North America, a Florida-based company, for the manufacture and installation of bus stop real-time information digital signs and lighting units

4. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

Executive Summary
Big Blue Bus (BBB), a division of the Santa Monica Department of Transportation (DOT), operates 194 transit buses across 58 square miles of greater Los Angeles, providing more than 800,000 rides each month.

DOT continues to advance ways to improve the customer experience at BBB stops.

Accordingly, staff recommends the purchase and installation of new real-time information digital signs which provide estimated time of arrivals (ETAs) for buses, both

4.F
Packet Pg. 117
2 of 6
to replace some of the existing real-time information signs currently in operation as they have reached the end of their useful life, and to expand the number of stops that have real-time information signs.

The proposed units for installation include security lighting for improved safety and visibility at stops. Pending Council approval, the new real-time information digital signs will be fully installed by end of 2026. After the new digital signs are installed, real-time information signs will be located at approximately 275 Big Blue Bus stops, representing 70% of daily boardings.

To facilitate the capital improvement project, staff is seeking Council authority to appropriate an additional $205,337 of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds towards this project, in order to establish a total five-year contract with Papercast North America in the amount of $1,400,227.

Discussion
In 2024, Big Blue Bus launched the Better Blue Bus Stops program to plan for and coordinate the improvement of its bus stops. BBB has over 930 stops in its service area, each having unique needs and opportunities for improvement. Through customer feedback and community engagement, staff found that the most requested bus stop improvement by customers was new or improved real-time information signs. Real-time signs improve customer experience by providing accurate bus estimated time of arrival information for current and new customers.

In 2018, BBB procured 200 real-time information signs manufactured by Waysine.

These solar-powered, LED signs were installed throughout the BBB service area, typically on top of metal bus stop poles; with a handful of units being installed directly into the blue information kiosk found in Santa Monica. The units generally have a fiveto-seven-year life expectancy. Currently some of the units in the field are nonoperational due to battery issues, missing solar parts, vandalism, or simply old age.

This procurement will replace some of these units and expand the number of stops with real-time information signs. The new units also reflect an overall enhancement to the

4.F
Packet Pg. 118
3 of 6
real-time information sign experience due to their e-paper design and original messaging capabilities.

Real-time information signs are a type of bus stop amenity and are allocated based on boardings as established by Big Blue Bus’s Transit Service Guidelines. The table below provides a guide on what amenities (i.e., seating, shade, etc.) should be provided at a stop based on their classification.

Average Daily Boardings Bus Stop
Classification Amenities Provided
ALL STOPS All stops Printed public information kiosk plus adequate lighting
20 OR MORE BOARDINGS Low volume Above plus seating
50 OR MORE BOARDINGS Medium volume Above plus shelter or shade 100 OR MORE BOARDINGS High volume Above plus real-time signage. Waste receptacles (optional).
750 OR MORE BOARDINGS Very high volume Above plus multiple shelters or extra-large shelter.

Vendor/Consultant Selection
On May 6, 2025, the City issued RFP #436 Bus Stop Real-Time Signs. Vendors were asked to provide proposals based on orders of either 100 or 125 real-time information units comprised of either LED, LCD, or E-Paper displays. Vendors were also asked to include solar lighting as an add-on feature. Responses to the RFP were reviewed by an evaluation committee made up of staff members from the Transit Planning and Performance, Finance and Administrative Services, and Community Engagement and Customer Experience divisions. Best and final offers were requested of GMV, Papercast, and Urban Solar.

Environmental Review
The installation of real-time information signs is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Section 15302, Section 15303, and Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 exempts (Class 1 Existing Facilities) projects from CEQA, which include the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or

4.F
Packet Pg. 119
4 of 6
former use. Section 15302 exempts (Class 2 Replacement or Reconstruction) the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. Section 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction of Small Structures) exempts construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including utility extensions and accessory structures/facilities. Section 15311 (Class 11 – Accessory Structures) exempts construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, such as SCE utility facilities. The project would both replace some of the existing real-time information signs currently in operation as they have reached the end of their useful life, and would install new realtime information signs at existing stops that would be small and accessory to the bus stops. Therefore, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Section 15302, Section 15303, and Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Bidder Recommendation
Best Bidder Papercast
Evaluation Criteria Product Design; Stability/References; Ability to Meet Work Plan; Technical Competence; Cost; Presentation
Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.190
Submittals Received
GMV $1,503,125 Papercast $1,333,550
Tranzito $1,131,250 Urban Solar $1,469,375
Bid Data
Date
Posted Posted On
Advertise In
(City Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
05/06/2025 City's
Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica Daily Press 7 06/17/2025
Best Bidder Justification
Based on the evaluation criteria, staff recommend awarding the bid to Papercast as the best qualified firm. Papercast was selected due to positive references regarding their product and service, display attractiveness, and customer-friendly interface. The other vendors did not score as well in the evaluation criteria with respect to technical

4.F
Packet Pg. 120
5 of 6
competence/quality, product design, and ability to meet work plan.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to appropriate $205,337 of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds and approve the use of this funding from the Big Blue Bus fund to award a fiveyear contract with Papercast North America to purchase, install, and maintain real-time information signs and bus stop lighting.

FY 2025-26 CIP Budget Amendment
Additional Funds to be Appropriated
CIP Account # Amount
C6008660.689000 $205,337
Contract Request
FY 2025-06 Request
Amount CIP Account # Total Contract Amount
$1,400,277 C6008660.689000 $1,400,227
Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

Prepared By: Joseph Santiago, Transit Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council

4.F
Packet Pg. 121
6 of 6
Attachments:

A. OAKS_INITIATIVE_FORM - Papercast North America - 8-22-2025 B. FY25-26_Living_Wage_Certification_Fillable_6-3-25_-_SIGNED C. Levine_Act_Disclosure_Form_-_PAPERCAST_NORTH_AMERICA_-_SIGNED D. ADD TO: Revised Levine Form_PaperCast North America

4.F
Packet Pg. 122

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

OR OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica’s voters adopted a City Charter amendment commonly known as the Oaks Initiative. The Oaks Initiative requires the City to provide this notice and information about the Initiative’s requirements. You may obtain a full copy of the Initiative’s text from the City Clerk.

This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection. It prohibits a public official from receiving, and a person or entity from conferring, specified personal benefits or campaign advantages from a person or entity after the official votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a “public benefit” to that person or entity. The prohibition applies within and outside of the geographical boundaries of Santa Monica.

All persons or entities applying or receiving public benefits from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners, and officers, and names of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. An exception exists for persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6), of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception does not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees. Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12-month period.

In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity. Therefore, if you are seeking a “public benefit” covered by the Oaks Initiative, you must supply that information on the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form. This information must be updated and supplied every 12 months.

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: OAKS_INITIATIVE_FORM - Papercast North America - 8-22-2025 (7222 : Award Contract for Electronic Real-Time Bus Arrival Signs

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:

Prepared by: ____________________________Title: __________________________ Signature: ______________________________________ Date: ________________ Email: ____________________________________ Phone: ____________________ FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract # ____________________________ Permit # ___________________________

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: OAKS_INITIATIVE_FORM - Papercast North America - 8-22-2025 (7222 : Award Contract for Electronic Real-Time Bus Arrival Signs

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE
Certification for Providers of Services to the City of Santa Monica (Fiscal Year 25/26 – July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026)

TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL CONTRACTORS PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN EXCESS OF $54,200
The City of Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.65, Living Wage Ordinance (LWO), establishes a Minimum Wage of $22.50 per hour for certain employees of contractors providing services to the City where services exceed $54,200 or more and requires that contractors also provide the same health care and other benefits to employees’ same sex spouses and domestic partners as are provided to other employees’ spouses.

An employee covered by the LWO is any person who does not actually work as a manager, supervisor, or confidential employee, and who is not required to possess an occupational license.

The Living Wage Ordinance applies the services sought pursuant to this bid and bidders are required to prepare and return the Living Wage Certification Form. If the bidder is selected, the bidder must maintain payroll records that include, at minimum, the full name of each employee providing services under the contract, job classification and rate of pay. Bids that fail to include Certification Forms may be considered non-responsive and excluded from further consideration.

Please prepare the following certification if you are a contractor engaging in a contract for services with the City of Santa Monica in excess of $54,200.

Your signature on this certification grants the City permission to review any and all payroll books and records and any company documents pertaining to the benefits offered to employees to assure your compliance with the LWO during the term of the contract.

Please direct any questions to:

City of Santa Monica Finance Department
Attention: Living Wage Compliance Section
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 09
Santa Monica, CA 90401
You can also contact staff regarding living wage ordinance questions by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone 310-458-8281.

4.F.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: FY25-26_Living_Wage_Certification_Fillable_6-3-25_-_SIGNED (7222 : Award Contract for Electronic Real-Time Bus Arrival Signs

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION
July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026

TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL CONTRACTORS PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN EXCESS OF $54,200
MINIMUM WAGE - $22.50 per hour
Please read, complete, and sign the following:

THIS CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO THE LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE ☐ THIS CONTRACT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE ☐ If this contract is not subject to the Living Wage Ordinance requirements, please note the reason below and attach supporting documentation for exemption. For example, in order to be exempt pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, a signed collective bargaining agreement must be attached. (a) contractor is a government agency and is exempt
(b) contractor is a City grantee and is exempt
(c) contractor is a non-profit corporation and is exempt (d) contractor is an employer whose employees are covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement where the waiver is explicitly set forth in an agreement in clear and unambiguous terms
(e) contractor is a corporation providing banking services The undersigned, on behalf of himself or herself individually and on behalf of his or her business or organization, hereby certifies that he or she is fully aware of Santa Monica’s Living Wage Ordinance (LWO), and the applicability of the LWO, and the applicability of the subject contract, as determined herein. The undersigned further agrees to be bound by all terms of the LWO, as mandated in all sections of Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 4.65. If, at any time during the term of the contract, the answers to the questions posed herein change so that Contractor would be subject to the LWO, Contractor will promptly notify the Director of Finance in writing. Contractor further understands and agrees that the failure to comply with the LWO, this certification, or the terms of the Contract as it applies to the LWO, shall constitute a default of the Contract, which shall be grounds for termination. City shall have the right to examine all books and records of the Contractor as they relate to compliance with the LWO.

Payroll records shall at a minimum include the full name of each employee performing labor or providing services under the contract, job classification, and rate of pay.

These statements are made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.

Printed Name: Title:

Signature: Date:

Contractor: Bid Number (if applicable):

Service Description:

4.F.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: FY25-26_Living_Wage_Certification_Fillable_6-3-25_-_SIGNED (7222 : Award Contract for Electronic Real-Time Bus Arrival Signs City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE
In 2022, California’s SB1439 extended requirements under Government Code Section 84308, also known as the "Levine Act", to prohibit City “Officers” from participating in any action related to a contract, license, permit, or entitlement if such Officer received campaign contributions totaling more than $250 within the previous twelve months, and for twelve months following the date of a final decision, from a party or participant to the proceeding, or their agent.

Section 84308(a)(4) of the Levine Act defines an "Officer" as follows: “Officer” means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. The term “Officer” is further defined 2 Cal. Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:

An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency or officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position;
(2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or
(4) Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.

Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $250 to any City Officer in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your application or proposal? ____YES ____ NO
Name of Councilmember or City Officer: _________________________________

4.F.c
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Levine_Act_Disclosure_Form_-_PAPERCAST_NORTH_AMERICA_-_SIGNED (7222 : Award Contract for Electronic Real-Time Bus City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Name of Contributor: _________________________________________________ Date(s) of Contribution(s): ____________________________________________ Amount(s) ________________________________________________________ Please specify below and/or add additional sheet(s) to identify additional Councilmembers or City Officers to whom you and/or your agents made campaign contributions.

Answering YES does not preclude the City of Santa Monica from awarding a contract, license, permit, or entitlement or taking any subsequent action related to the item. It does, however, preclude the identified City Officer from participating in any actions related to such item.

By signing below, you certify you also agree to disclose to the City any future contributions made to Councilmembers or other City Officers by you or your agent(s) after the date of signing this disclosure form, and within 12 months following the approval, renewal, or extension of the requested contract, license, permit, or entitlement.

I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:

Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.

4.F.c
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Levine_Act_Disclosure_Form_-_PAPERCAST_NORTH_AMERICA_-_SIGNED (7222 : Award Contract for Electronic Real-Time Bus

4.F.d
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: ADD TO: Revised Levine Form_PaperCast North America [Revision 1] (7222 : Award Contract for Electronic Real-Time Bus Arrival

4.F.d
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: ADD TO: Revised Levine Form_PaperCast North America [Revision 1] (7222 : Award Contract for Electronic Real-Time Bus Arrival City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 14, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.G
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Matthew Hallock, Fire Chief, Fire Department
Subject: Approval of Change Orders with Life-Assist, Inc. and Henry Schein to Increase Total Amounts for Purchase Orders for Medical Supplies for the Fire Department
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

Summary
The Santa Monica Fire Department (SMFD) utilizes medical supplies and equipment in its apparatus and ambulances to respond to emergency medical calls. Currently, SMFD utilizes Bound Tree Medical, LLC as the primary vendor, with Life-Assist Inc. and Henry Schein Inc. as the secondary vendors.

With the recent addition of the Advanced Provider Unit and the Ambulance Operator pilot program, SMFD requires more medical supplies and equipment than originally envisioned when the agreements were first awarded. While SMFD has sufficient

4.G
Packet Pg. 131
2 of 4
contract authority with Bound Tree Medical, SMFD is requesting an increased not-toexceed amount with Life-Assist and Henry Schein, as these vendors have certain supplies and equipment that Bound Tree does not.

Accordingly, for Life-Assist, staff recommends an increase of $61,744, for a total not to exceed amount of $117,000 over the five-year term. For Henry Schein, staff recommends an increase of $107,372, for a total not to exceed amount of $135,000 over the five-year term. The terms of these agreements are not changing.

Discussion
The Fire Department responds to over 13,000 emergency medical calls annually and uses a variety of medical supplies when responding to those calls that require medical treatment. Staff purchases medical supplies and equipment to ensure our first responders are prepared to provide care to patients with medical conditions and traumatic injuries. These include bandages, splints, intravenous supplies, oxygen masks, medications, and airway equipment.

On September 26, 2023, Council awarded bid # 4458 to Bound Tree Medical, LLC as the primary vendor, with Life-Assist Inc. and Henry Schein Inc. as secondary vendors, for the purchase of medical supplies and equipment. This ensures that if our primary vendor is unable to provide the supplies, staff could order from either of the secondary vendors.

On June 24, 2025, Council adopted the FY 2025-27 Biennial Budget which authorized the creation of an Ambulance Operator (AO) pilot program and an Advanced Provider Unit (APU). The ambulances and APU vehicle require substantial medical supplies and equipment prior to being deployed to emergency medical calls. Some of the required items specific to the APU are only stocked by Henry Schein or Life-Assist. In addition, as the department looks to the future, there is potential to expand the AO program and the APU. Due to the anticipated increase in purchases from Henry Schein and LifeAssist, staff recommends an increase to their total not to exceed amounts. For LifeAssist, staff recommends an increase of $61,744, for a total not to exceed amount of $117,000 over the five-year term. For Henry Schein, staff recommends an increase of $107,372, for a total not to exceed amount of $135,000 over the five-year term. The terms of these agreements are not changing.

4.G
Packet Pg. 132
3 of 4
Environmental Review
This notification to Council of the purchase order change is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The purchase of medical supplies would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment and, as such, is exempt from CEQA.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
09/26/2023 Award Bid 4458 to Bound Tree Medical LLC., Life-Assist Inc., and Henry Schein Inc. for Fire Department Medical Supplies
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the General Fund to increase the amount of the purchase orders with Life-Assist Inc. and Henry Schein Inc. for medical supplies and equipment.

Purchase Order Modification Request
Purchase
Order Number Vendor
Current
Authorized
Amount
FY 2025-26
Modified
Request
Amount
Account Number Total Revised
PO Amount
22600660 Life-Assist $55,256 $61,744 01190005.525150 $117,000 22600661 Henry Schein $27,628 $107,372 01190005.525150 $135,000 Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

4.G
Packet Pg. 133
4 of 4
Prepared By: Jonathan Tang, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. LIFE-ASSIST-OAKS exp. 02-26-26
B. LIFE-ASSIST-LEVINE exp. 02-26-26
C. HENRY SCHEIN - LEVINE exp. 05-12-26
D. OAKS Initiative_Henry
E. ADD-TO: Revised Levine Form_Life-Assist 2025

4.G
Packet Pg. 134

CITY OF SANTA MONICA OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of$25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more inany 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an establishedland use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

Life-Assist, Inc.

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Bryan Holliday, CEO/President
Ryan Parks, CFO
Linda Bergaus, Corporate Secretary
Cherie Prior, Vice President
Andy Selby, Vice President of Sales
Cherise Akers, Senior Director of Sales Support
Todd Levy, Director of Sales, Central
Chris Wilson, Director of Sales, East
Brett Archer, Director of Sales Operations
Stacey Scholz, Director of Marketing
Eddie Macagnone, Operations Director
Christine Waugh, Director of Purchasing
Brien Malone, IT Director
Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenueinterest:

N/A
Prepared by: Walt Anderson Title: Pricing Specialist II Signature: Date: 2/26/2025
Email: [email protected] Phone: 800-824-6016x121
FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract # Permit #

4.G.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: LIFE-ASSIST-OAKS exp. 02-26-26 (7266 : Increase NTE for Medical Supplies) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

4.G.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: LIFE-ASSIST-LEVINE exp. 02-26-26 (7266 : Increase NTE for Medical Supplies) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Name of Contributor: _________________________________________________ Date(s) of Contribution(s): ____________________________________________ Amount(s) ________________________________________________________ Please specify below and/or add additional sheet(s) to identify additional Councilmembers or City Officers to whom you and/or your agents made campaign contributions.

I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:

Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.

4.G.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: LIFE-ASSIST-LEVINE exp. 02-26-26 (7266 : Increase NTE for Medical Supplies) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE
The Levine Act prohibits City Officers from participating in any action related to a contract, license, permit, or entitlement if such Officer received campaign contributions totaling more than $500 within the previous twelve months, and for twelve months following the date of a final decision, from a party or participant to the proceeding, or their agent.

Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:

An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency or officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position;
(2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or (4) Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.

A list of Santa Monica Elected Officials and members of boards and commissions can be found at the following links. The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a City Officer prior to completing this form. https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/
https://www.santamonica.gov/departments/rent-control
https://www.smgov.net/boards/
Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $500 to any City Officer in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your application or proposal? ____YES ____ NO
Name of Councilmember or City Officer: _________________________________ Name of Contributor: _________________________________________________ Date(s) of Contribution(s): ____________________________________________ Amount(s) ________________________________________________________ Please specify below and/or add additional sheet(s) to identify additional Councilmembers or City Officers to whom you and/or your agents made campaign contributions.

4.G.c
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: HENRY SCHEIN - LEVINE exp. 05-12-26 (7266 : Increase NTE for Medical Supplies) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Answering YES does not preclude the City of Santa Monica from awarding a contract, license, permit, or entitlement or taking any subsequent action related to the item. It does, however, preclude the identified City Officer from participating in any actions related to such item.

I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIATHAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUEAND CORRECT.

Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:

Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.

4.G.c
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: HENRY SCHEIN - LEVINE exp. 05-12-26 (7266 : Increase NTE for Medical Supplies) SANTA MONICA CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
TO: Public
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
RE: Levine Act Disclosure Form
The Levine Act (Government Code 84308) is a California law aimed at preventing “pay to play” practices by prohibiting parties, participants, and their agents in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement from contributing more than $500 to an officer of the City during a 12-month period. The prohibition applies to any 12-month period while the proceeding is pending and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.

State law requires a party to a proceeding to disclose any contributions exceeding an aggregate $500 that the party and their agents have made to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months. The Disclosure Form is intended to assist City officials with recognizing when they have an obligation to disclose and recuse themselves, and to aid parties with their disclosure obligations.

1. To what sort of proceedings is the disclosure form applicable? The Levine Act applies to all discretionary entitlements and contracts, with the exception of labor contracts, personal employment contracts, and contracts that must be awarded to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder. It does not apply to ministerial approvals.

For instance, the Levine Act applies to the following:
• Building and development permits
• Conditional use permits
• Contracts generally (unless an exception applies):
o Real property contracts for purchase, sale, lease
o Contract amendments
o Settlement agreements
o Contracts for goods, services, professional services that are not awarded pursuant to a competitive process
• Public street abandonments
• Private development plans
• Professional license revocations
• Rezoning of specific real estate parcels
• Event permits
• Rulemaking procedures affecting a particular industry where only a small number of businesses are affected
• Special district formation proceedings involving the creation of a special use or benefit to the person in the district
• Tentative subdivision and parcel maps

4.G.c
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: HENRY SCHEIN - LEVINE exp. 05-12-26 (7266 : Increase NTE for Medical Supplies)

Page 2 ends

• Zoning variances
• Vacation of a public easement across private property • Pre-applications, such as for General Plan Amendment, considered by the legislative body prior to filing of formal application
• Contracts entered under the City Manager’s Authority
• Closed session items that may result in a contract/settlement agreement approved by Council (real estate or litigation)
It does not apply to:
• Contracts under $50,000
• Contracts where no party receives financial compensation • Contracts between two or more public agencies
• Competitively bid contracts that are required by law, agency policy, or agency rule to be awarded pursuant to a competitive process
• Purely ministerial decisions
• General policy decisions or rules where the interests affected are many and diverse
• Ordinances and resolutions (except items like development agreements adopted by ordinance)
• Ballot measures
• Departmental policies
• Council rules
• Labor contracts and project labor agreements
• Personal employment contracts
• Allocation of resources in the City budget

2. Who is required to disclose?
A “party” to a proceeding is any person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding. In general, a person or company who applies for a permit, license, or right to use property in a particular way, which requires the City’s discretionary approval, will qualify as a party.

Parties are also required to disclose contributions by their agents. An “agent” is someone who (1) represents a party to a proceeding for compensation; and (2) appears before or otherwise communicates with the City for the purpose of influencing the pending proceeding. This can include law firms, architects, engineers, consultants, and similar entities. Both the individual and their employer or firm are considered “agents.” A party should also disclose contributions of other entities majority owned by the party, as well as contributions of any other entity whose contributions it directs or controls.

3. What must be disclosed?
A party must disclose campaign contributions over $250 made in the prior twelve months.

A “contribution” is anything of value for which the party has not received full consideration, including money, nonmonetary items, payments made for advertising or

4.G.c
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: HENRY SCHEIN - LEVINE exp. 05-12-26 (7266 : Increase NTE for Medical Supplies)

Page 3 ends

Santa Monica City CouncilOctober 14, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
October 14, 2025