Written Comment — Santa Monica City Council, October 14, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

While tonight’s item appears to only be relevant to the two addresses above, this issue has citywide implications as it demonstrates that our city lacks a process to expend taxpayer funds in compliance with state law and the spirit of our City’s Strategic Plan on Homelessness, which require community and professional involvement at every stage. These provisions are designed to guarantee that the voices of those with lived experience of mental illness, along with residents, local businesses, and first responders, are all heard, respected, and accounted for – particularly as our city faces significant financial shortfalls.

The issue is not about opposing care—it is about ensuring that care is delivered responsibly, safely, cost effectively, and with dignity for all. The Mayor’s call for coordination between the City, Los Angeles County, and nonprofit providers ensures that these projects will be guided by expertise, empathy, and accountability. The community should be viewed as partners in this endeavor, to help all parties achieve the outcomes that benefit the wellbeing of all, which is one of the stated mission in the City’s Homelessness Strategic Plan.

By calling for clarity on zoning, transparency in developer practices, and robust public outreach, Mayor Negrete is not creating barriers to progress—she is building trust, ensuring that our city’s compassion is matched by competence in every single neighborhood across this city. This approach strengthens our collective ability to help people heal, stabilize, and reintegrate into the community.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Her leadership reminds us that compassion and accountability are not opposing values—they are inseparable. A community that truly cares about its most vulnerable must also care deeply about how decisions are made, how funds are spent, and how every stakeholder is treated.

I stand in full support of Mayor Negrete’s efforts to make Santa Monica a model for both compassionate care and transparent governance. Los Angeles County should not be driving decisions that impact all of our communities without accountability, and thus, we simultaneously call on Third District LA County Supervisor Lindsay Horvath to intervene – to both pause funding for these projects and support Mayor Negrete’s detailed request.

In conclusion, we respectfully request your support for all six requests in Mayor Negrete’s memo and pause the opening of the facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean until all the analyses are posted and shared with the public. Thank you for your service to our city and for considering this important item.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Paul Farr
436 Georgina Ave, Santa Monica CA 90402
[email protected]
cc: Third District Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
259
Mitchell Kois
From: Greta WZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16-Negrete

EXTERNAL
I oppose this measure to set up this in my neighborhood.

Greta Witt
303 18th street
Santa Monica ca
90402
Monday, Oct 13 - *NOON DEADLINE*
To submit your objection into the public record in advance of Tuesday’s City of Santa Monica Council submit an email to the two addresses below with the subject line: "Item 16-Negrete":
[email protected]
[email protected]
Tuesday, October 14th at 5:30pm
Attend the Santa Monica City Council meeting, where the 413/825 Ocean Ave homeless shelters for the severely mentally ill will be discussed. A copy of the agenda, which links to Mayor Lana Negrete’s request to re-open analysis of the project can be found here. (https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1454) Here are ways you can participate:
• Participate in Person: The meeting is held in the City Council Chambers at 1685 Main Street, Room 250, Santa Monica, CA.
[email protected]
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
260
Mitchell Kois
From: Barbara Mack <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Subject: 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue

EXTERNAL
I oppose the establishment of the two homeless shelters on Ocean Avenue Barbara Mack
100 Larkin Place
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
261
Mitchell Kois
From: Laura S M <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:48 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Request to Delay Opening of Proposed Mental Health Facilities with Voluntary Entry/Exit Procedures at 413/825 Ocean Ave Per Item 16-B

EXTERNAL
Forgot the date
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 7:43 AM Laura S M <[email protected]> wrote:

Monday Oct 13,2025 7:45 AM
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing as a Santa Monica resident to express my concerns about the secretive negotiations between unnamed City Council Members, the City’s Housing and Human Services Department (HHS), the County Department of Mental Health (DMH) to fund – with taxpayer money – a 49-bed facility for the unhoused and several mentally ill. This project, according to the CEO of St. Joseph’s Center, was brought forward to the County only once a private developer who is currently suing the City of Santa Monica, sought out the County and St. Joseph’s to offer up his sites at 413 Ocean Avenue and 825 Ocean Avenue.

I write to also offer my heartfelt support and appreciation for Mayor Lana Negrete who is the only voice on the City Council who has been transparent and forthcoming with our community about these facilities and constructively outlining a way forward for the entire city to engage on such important funding decisions.

While residents of Santa Monica must notify their surrounding neighbors for a mere hedge modification or expansion of a school sports court, no courtesy was provided to the community on this project that has significant reverberations throughout the entire City. The secrecy in which this project was approved without any public notification, permitting requirements, or consideration of the surrounding community and its citywide financial burden is grossly negligent.

As such, we want to record our opposition to this project and provide full support for Item 16-B on the October 14, 2025 City Council agenda, corresponding to Mayor Negrete’s October 9, 2025 excellent and fair memorandum titled “Request for City Council Direction on Community Engagement, Zoning Clarity, and Accountability for LA County and Nonprofit Operated Housing Projects.” This proposal offers a thoughtful and balanced framework that promotes compassion and transparency while ensuring accountability, public safety, and community trust for the entire population of Santa Monica. While this project is specific to the community near Palisades Park, every single community in Santa Monica deserves notification and public input in any projects that affect their community, writ large. While it is this community today, it can be any community tomorrow.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
262
We request the City and County work together to request a delay of the project at 413/825 Ocean Ave. until all of the items in 16-B have been discussed in public hearings and a new analysis explaining the rationale behind this project, the alternative sites that were considered, and if the County made a decision that is in compliance with the needs defined by the City and its residents.

Specifically, as it relates to Item 16-B:

1. Comprehensive Outreach and Communication
We strongly support Direction #1, which calls for coordination between the City, LA County Department of Mental Health (DMH), St. Joseph Center, and the project developer to ensure robust outreach to residents and nearby businesses—including the numerous schools, hotels, small businesses, and other stakeholders along Ocean Avenue and its surrounding radius. Residents and local business owners deserve timely notice and a chance to understand project goals, operations, and impacts. Transparent engagement fosters cooperation rather than conflict and ensures that city decisions reflect both compassion and local input.

2. Compliance with Proposition 1 and the Good Neighbor Policy Direction #2 correctly emphasizes compliance with all state laws. These laws explicitly require citizen and professional involvement at all stages of the planning process (Welfare & Institutions Code §5604.2(a)(4)). Enforcing these mandates ensures that mental health projects are developed with appropriate compassion for affected communities with input from residents, law enforcement, educators, housing experts, business owners, and those with lived experience. This is fidelity to the law and the spirit of partnership that newly passed state requires.

3. Clarification of Zoning and Public Notification Requirements Direction #3 requests clarification of zoning classifications, use types, and public notice procedures for supportive, shelter, and transitional housing projects. Clear zoning definitions protect both residents and service providers by establishing predictable rules and preventing misunderstandings about what types of uses are permitted “by right.” Ensuring that every neighborhood receives formal notice when a project is proposed is an essential safeguard for democratic participation. Every Santa Monican deserves to understand what are allowable uses for the buildings in their communities, particularly around communities that serve children and seniors.

The Mayor’s proposed public communications strategy—including a dedicated FAQ webpage, hotline for concerns, and clear follow-up protocols—is precisely the kind of accessible, fact-based communication the community needs. The fact that no one has yet been able to access any public documentation regarding the process and application in which these facilities were approved and funded with taxpayer funds speaks to the lack of transparency the law requires.

5. Verification of Developer Qualifications and Financial Transparency Direction #5’s call for verification of the developer’s goals, operational record, legal standing, and compensation from LA County is essential for accountability. Residents have a right to know who is behind these projects, how public funds are being used, and whether any conflicts of interest or active litigation exist. This transparency builds Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
263
confidence in both the City’s and County’s stewardship of public resources, and that site selection is driven by thoughtful due diligence, published documentation, and needs analyses that demonstrate funding needs are matched to the highest and best use, instead of driven by calls from developers who are seeking subsidized operations while they seek entitlements.

6. Retrospective Review and Corrective Action
Direction #6 ensures that the entire City of Santa Monica benefits from a thoughtful approach to compassionate care. We must learn from past experience by reviewing similar projects in Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood. If community engagement was inadequate in earlier projects, the City should take corrective steps now— establishing consistent contact systems, feedback channels, and neighborhood support mechanisms. This proactive stance prevents repeated errors and strengthens long-term public trust. Given the City’s financial challenges with cut services, particularly in public safety, we must provide support to all affected services across the City that no department is overly burdened by County-driven decisions that silence City taxpayers.

Conclusion
The Mayor’s memo provides a clear roadmap toward a balanced approach—one that supports mental health initiatives while demanding accountability, transparency, and respect for Santa Monica residents. I respectfully urge the City Council to adopt all six directives in full and to hold LA County and its nonprofit partners to the highest standards of openness, compliance, and community collaboration.

In addition, on page 5 of the City of Santa Monica’s Homelessness Strategic Plan one of the first stated values of the plan is to be transparent. I quote: “Transparent. We strive to communicate clearly and openly, sharing our intentions, decisions, and results to foster the trust of our community.” The mission statement of the strategic plan also claims to “promote the wellbeing of all”, but that clearly was not followed in the case of 413/825 Ocean Avenue.

Thank you for your leadership in ensuring Santa Monica’s approach to mental health and homelessness remains both compassionate and responsible. To that end, please work with our community and the County to pause the opening of the unlocked mental illness facilities at 413/825 Ocean Ave.

Sincerely,
Laura Miller
144 Alta Ave
Santa Monica CA 90402
Tel. 310-4980931
[email protected]
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
264
Mitchell Kois
From: Laura S M <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:43 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Delay Opening of Proposed Mental Health Facilities with Voluntary Entry/Exit Procedures at 413/825 Ocean Ave Per Item 16-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing as a Santa Monica resident to express my concerns about the secretive negotiations between unnamed City Council Members, the City’s Housing and Human Services Department (HHS), the County Department of Mental Health (DMH) to fund – with taxpayer money – a 49-bed facility for the unhoused and several mentally ill. This project, according to the CEO of St. Joseph’s Center, was brought forward to the County only once a private developer who is currently suing the City of Santa Monica, sought out the County and St. Joseph’s to offer up his sites at 413 Ocean Avenue and 825 Ocean Avenue.

The secrecy in which this project was approved without any public notification, permitting requirements, or consideration of the surrounding community and its citywide financial burden is grossly negligent.

We request the City and County work together to request a delay of the project at 413/825 Ocean Ave. until all of the items in 16-B have been discussed in public hearings and a new analysis explaining the rationale behind this project, the Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
265
alternative sites that were considered, and if the County made a decision that is in compliance with the needs defined by the City and its residents.

Specifically, as it relates to Item 16-B:

4. Public Explanation of Land Use and Operational Standards Direction #4 calls for a clear public explanation of the legal basis that allows these facilities to operate without a discretionary City permit. Residents must understand the distinctions between a mental health facility, a transitional housing facility, an emergency shelter, and supportive housing—and how each is governed under City and State law. The Mayor’s proposed public communications strategy—including a dedicated FAQ webpage, hotline for concerns, and clear follow-up protocols—is precisely the kind of accessible, factbased communication the community needs. The fact that no one has yet been able to access any public documentation regarding the process and application in which these facilities were approved and funded with taxpayer funds speaks to the lack of transparency the law requires.

5. Verification of Developer Qualifications and Financial Transparency Direction #5’s call for verification of the developer’s goals, operational record, legal standing, and compensation from LA County is essential for accountability. Residents have a right to know who is behind these projects, how public funds are being used, and whether any conflicts of interest or active litigation exist. This transparency builds confidence in both the City’s and County’s stewardship of public resources, and that site selection is driven by thoughtful due diligence, published documentation, and needs analyses that demonstrate funding needs are matched to the highest and best use, Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
266
instead of driven by calls from developers who are seeking subsidized operations while they seek entitlements.

Sincerely,
Laura Miller
144 Alta Ave
Santa Monica CA 90402
Tel. 310-4980931
[email protected]
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
267
Mitchell Kois
From: Isabelle Carroll <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to the proposed two sites for homeless shelter for the severely mentally ill

EXTERNAL
As a resident of Santa Monica, I oppose the opening of 413 825 Ocean Avenue to be used as a homeless shelter for the mentally ill.

There was absolutely no transparency from the beginning it was hidden from the community and the council, which is outrageous.

That lack of transparency in itself shows the uncertainty of how the community would’ve reacted to the proposal Saint Joseph’s is fully aware of that fact that’s why there was no transparency.

The fact that the housing of the mentally ill trumps any concern for the safety of the community is outrageous.

As a resident, I support the effort to house the homeless but a mentally ill facility in a densely populated community is unacceptable. Another opƟon could’ve been a women’s shelter or a group home for families that are working and in need of housing. The community would’ve been less likely to reject a proposal of that nature if there was full transparency.

Surely there is another viable locaƟon for these individuals. St. Joseph’s is certainly aware that mentally ill homeless resist housing.

They have difficulty with structure and being told what to do. I am very skepƟcal about the ability of supervision for any ouƟngs at all Please consider another locaƟon.

Isabelle Carroll
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
268
Mitchell Kois
From: Mette Vandborg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:34 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Shelters for the Severely Mentally Ill at 413/825 Ocean Ave

EXTERNAL
10/13/2025
The Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Shelters for the Severely Mentally Ill at 413/825 Ocean Ave
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I want to express my strong opposition to the process in which approvals and funding were secured for two mental health facilities which require no background checks or sobriety requirements, per a statement made by the LA County Department of Mental Health during a community town hall conducted on Thursday, October 9th. As such, I also write to express my strong support for Mayor Lana Negrete’s leadership and her recent memo requesting transparency, community engagement, and accountability regarding the facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue.

On a personal note. We are one of the many unfortunate families who lost our home due to the Palisades Fire. We moved to Marguerita Ave in Santa Monica. The building we now live in is less than ½ block away from the property on 413 Ocean Ave. A week ago today, my husband was assaulted by a mentally unstable man with an iron rod, and ended up in the hospital with fractures, lacerations etc. Now you want to jam an obviously incompatible use with 49 residents exhibiting all the characteristics that make the City unsafe, bad for trade, bad for families and bad for property values, and insert it into one of the last relatively safe pockets of public space, the North end of Palisades Park. I urge you to put an immediate stop to this.

While our community cares deeply about helping those struggling with mental illness and homelessness, these projects are located in areas surrounded by senior facilities, preschools, and elementary schools—all within a half-mile radius. This makes it especially important that decisions like this are made with full public input, clear information, and thoughtful consideration of available citywide resources (e.g., law enforcement), neighborhood safety, and tourism impacts particularly as our city is under significant financial stress.

The areas near Palisades Park are not only home to schools, senior living facilities, small businesses, and residents but also significantly support Santa Monica’s tourism economy, generating millions in annual tax revenue that support essential city services. Our city is already under significant financial stress, and we must Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
269
ensure that every funding decision protects both our most vulnerable residents and our broader economic health.

Mayor Negrete’s call for transparency, zoning clarity, and proper community engagement is exactly what Santa Monica needs right now. I hope the entire Council supports her efforts to bring accountability and balance to this important issue – and pause the opening of these facilities until all due diligence has been conducted and public hearings have been held.

We must follow the transparency, community-centric measures outlined in the City of Santa Monica’s Homelessness Strategic Plan, where one of the first stated values of the plan is to be transparent. To expand, the documents states the goal of the effort is to be: “Transparent… We strive to communicate clearly and openly, sharing our intentions, decisions, and results to foster the trust of our community.” The mission statement of the strategic plan also claims to “promote the wellbeing of all”, but that clearly was not followed in the case of 413/825 Ocean Avenue.

Thank you for your service to our city and for considering this important item.

Sincerely,
Mette Vandborg
130 Marguerita Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
270
Mitchell Kois
From: Richard Thaler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16B

EXTERNAL
We support item 16B in the city council agenda and oppose the proposed homeless mental health facility on Ocean Ave.

We are seniors who have made Santa Monica our home for the past 47 years. We walk the Palisades Park daily. Placing 49 severely mentally ill people, some of whom will be violent, in the middle of a residenƟal area and across from a beloved community park is cruel and irresponsible towards the residents of our city. Yes, the facility will have 24hr security- but who will secure the safety and well being of us residents when the mental paƟents are free to come and go?
We support giving treatment to ill people- but not at the expense of the health, safety, and well being of the community.

Richard and Agnes Thaler
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
271
Mitchell Kois
From: Una Au <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:55 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16B Support for Negrete

EXTERNAL
Dear Coucilmembers,
I am writing to strongly urge you to support item 16B and our legal, due process rights under SB326.

We have organized hundreds of people in days, soon it will be thousands, and we are all deeply concerned about the planned opening of the homeless shelter on Ocean Avenue intended to serve 49 seriously mentally ill, drug addicted and homeless individuals.

The Good Neighbor Policy requirement (via SB326) was not followed and is a clear violation of our due process rights.

The first public discussion on this topic took place Thursday, October 9th during a NOMA informational zoom meeting. However, it was clear the intention of St. Joseph’s and LA County was to open the facility illegally and without notice or community input. More so, fully formed operational polices or adequate safety measures to protect the surrounding neighborhood were not and have not been presented or accepted.

St. Joseph’s also shared a timeline that implicated city staff and at least 3 Councilmember’s, all who were informed of the project since February and provided no community outreach, further violating our rights.

Furthermore, I am concerned to have learned from St. Joseph’s that individuals in this shelter will not be subject to drug testing or complete background checks, yet they will be permitted to exit and and enter the facility and community freely during the day. This poses significant risks to our community, especially given the proximity of schools, community parks and local residents. Additionally, it was suggested that others looking for homeless services would benefit from outreach being conducted in the surrounding area, effectively putting more homeless, mentally ill and drug addicts in the neighborhood. You are not simply housing 49 people you are a beacon to everyone looking for homeless services.

Personally, I would like to highlight that the elementary school my children attend, Carlthorp School, is located just 0.3 miles from the planned shelter location. In addition to Carlthorp, multiple other preschools and elementary schools in close proximity, educating thousands of elementary-aged students. The potential impact on the safety and well-being of these children and staff members cannot be overstated. It is illegal for anyone on the sex registry to live within a mile of a school and your suggested background check process is not measurable or complete.

It is clear your security plan beyond the shelter is not complete or adequate. The reputation of your Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
272
owner and “partner” in this facility was highlighted in this LA Times article from last year and details serious safety concerns surrounding another one his projects: https://www.latimes.com/homelesshousing/story/2024-11-05/new-owner-cuts-security-janitors-at-skid-row-homeless-housing-as-tenantsfear-worsening-conditions Simply accepting the risk and responsibility for approving this location is not acceptable. The introduction of such a facility without consideration of our legal, due process rights is dangerous.

It is your responsibility to prioritize the safety of your current community members, especially the many children who attend the impacted schools.

Protect our children, vote yes for item 16B to support transparency and our due process rights.

I look forward to your response and or support for item 16B.

Sincerely,
Una Au
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
273
Mitchell Kois
From: frankie stabler-sholem <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:42 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-Negrete

EXTERNAL
As the owner of 141 Georgina Ave I am begging you to reconsider the placing of a homeless shelter on my corner.

I have already had incidents of vagrants and a mentally ill older man unlawfully entering my property and refusing to leave.

I am not willing to risk the safety of my family by having this facility on my corner.

I feel unsafe when I walk on 2nd Street to see my doctor once a week as I have been accosted every single time by unhoused delusional people, some very aggressive.

We must return Santa Monica to a safe environment for our senior citizens and our children.

Thank you
Frankie Sholem
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
274
Mitchell Kois
From: Coleman, Anne L. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:37 AM
To: Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OceanAve mental health facility

EXTERNAL

Recently, I was made aware that the LA County Department of Mental Health (DMH), in partnership with St. Joseph Center, intends to establish two Behavioral Health Bridge Housing facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. The two properties will collectively serve to facilitate 49 interim housing beds for homeless individuals with severe behavioral health needs. St. Joseph Center will lease and operate the sites, while DMH will fund the services and program oversight through State Behavioral Health Bridge Housing resources.

I want to be clear that I support the intent of establishing these types of facilities, as they are needed pieces of infrastructure to bolster our homelessness response efforts. Further, LA County and St. Joseph Center have indicated that Santa Monica residents will be prioritized for placement, and that the facilities will include 24/7 staffing, on-site clinicians, and security personnel.

With that being said, the community has raised questions regarding possible impacts from this project. I am frustrated over the lack of prior notice or opportunity for public input before funding was approved by LA County and site renovations began.

Given the sensitivity of this matter and the community concerns expressed, I am requesting the following:

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
275

1. With respect to outreach related to the facilities on Ocean Avenue, direct that the City Manager coordinate with LA County, St. Joseph Center, and the project developer to ensure broad communication and outreach to both residents and adjacent businesses, including the Oceana (located two doors down from 825 Ocean Avenue) and other nearby stakeholders.

2. Direct that the City Manager work with the County of Los Angeles, relevant nonprofit partners, and project developers to ensure that all proposed supportive, shelter, or transitional housing projects within the City of Santa Monica comply with the intent and requirements of Proposition 1 and the Good Neighbor Policy (SB 326), including the community engagement provision set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code § 5604.2(a)(4), which requires citizen and professional involvement at all stages of the planning process – specifically including community members, business owners, housing, law enforcement, education, and others who interact with individuals living with mental illness on a daily basis.

3. Direct that the City Manager clarify zoning classifications,use types, and building-code provisions applicable to each supportive-service, shelter, and transitional housing type use, including whether such uses are permitted, conditionally permitted, or require discretionary review, and to return with recommendations that ensure that appropriate public notification always occurs to a neighborhood when such a project is being officially proposed.

4. Direct that the City Manager clearly define for the public the land use regulations that allow the facilities on Ocean to operate without needing to obtain a discretionary City permit. Along those lines, this work effort should include identification of what constitutes a mental-health facility, a transitional housing facility, an emergency shelter, and a supportive housing facility, and those details should be developed into a citywide communication strategy to inform the public about details related to these types of operations. That communications strategy should include: (1) an accessible webpage containing a comprehensive project FAQ detailing purpose, population Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
276
served, staffing, hours of operation, and oversight; (2) a designated hotline or contact person for residents and businesses to report nuisances or concerns; and (3) clear response protocols and follow-up mechanisms.

5. Direct that staff attempt to obtain from LA County verification with respect to the Ocean facility developer’s goals, operational record, and legal standing, in addition to how much LA County is paying the developer, and confirming that any developer or property owner involved in these projects is in good standing and not engaged in active litigation with the City or related public entities.

6. Please place this item on the October 14 agenda for full City Council consideration.

7. Finally, direct that the City Manager conduct a retrospective review of similar existing or recently approved projects – including those located in Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood – to determine whether proper community engagement and communication occurred, and, where lacking, to implement corrective measures and ensure that appropriate neighborhood contact and support systems are now in place.

Thank you for realizing the impact that your decisions have on our community. We are fortunate to have Oliver Chi as our new city manager. Let’s put him and yourselves to work and be the leaders that we are born to be!
I have been a Santa Monica homeowner for 30 years.

Best regards,
Anne
Anne L Coleman, MD, PhD
Chair, Department of Ophthalmology
Director of JSEI
Affiliation Chair of DEI
Bradley R Straatsma Endowed chair
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
277
UCLA HEALTH SCIENCES IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
278
Mitchell Kois
From: Mujon Baghai <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 2:11 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected] Subject: Item 16B Support for Negrete

EXTERNAL
The Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401

[Sent via
email: [email protected]; [email protected]; lana.negrete @santamonica.gov; [email protected]; [email protected]; Da [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Na [email protected]; [email protected]] RE:Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Facilities for the Unhoused with Severe Mental Crises at 413/825 Ocean Ave

Dear Mayor Negrete, Honorable Members of the City Council, and City Manager Chi, I am writing to express my sincerest support for Mayor Negrete who has singlehandedly brought to light the non-transparent nature in which two facilities for the severely mentally ill were approved near schools, senior centers, and parks without any publicly available impact analyses, stakeholder notification, or community input per Welfare & Institutions Code §5604.2(a)(4)). I stand with my fellow Santa Monicans to request a suspension of the facilities at 413 Ocean Ave and 825 Ocean Ave until all six elements in Mayor Negrete’s memo are complete and publicly posted, particularly Item #6, which asks for a citywide comprehensive and transparent site review process for such facilities.

The issue is not about opposing care—it is about ensuring that care is delivered responsibly, safely, cost effectively, and with dignity for all. The Mayor’s call for coordination between the City, Los Angeles County, and nonprofit providers ensures that these projects will be guided by expertise, empathy, and accountability. The community should be viewed as Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
279
partners in this endeavor, to help all parties achieve the outcomes that benefit the wellbeing of all, which is one of the stated mission in the City’s Homelessness Strategic Plan.

Her leadership reminds us that compassion and accountability are not opposing values—they are inseparable. A community that truly cares about its most vulnerable must also care deeply about how decisions are made, how funds are spent, and how every stakeholder is treated.

Sincerely,
Mujon Baghai
535 Ocean Avenue 9D
Santa Monica, CA 90402
cc:Third District Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
280
Mitchell Kois
From: Melanie Wise <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 12:24 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Sunday Oct. 12, 2025
Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[Sent via email: [email protected]; [email protected]] RE: Agenda Item 16 Commentary Request to DENY (minimally delay until proper public discourse is conducted) Opening of Shelters for the Severely Mentally Ill at 413/825 Ocean Ave Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Members of the City Council, I write to express my strong opposition to the above mentioned facilities.

The process in which approvals and funding were secured for two mental health facilities that completely preempted the city of Santa Monica’s leadership leaves one thinking: which of our city’s leaders are actually paying attention to what is occurring WITHIN OUR CITY? As a Santa Monican, I can NOT do squat on any piece of land within the limits of the city without a permit. HOW did these facilities get renovated WITHOUT THE EXPRESS KNOWLEDGE OF OUR CITY LEADERS? If these facilities are catching the council flat footed, it’s fair to say that ZERO due diligence has been performed.

How is it The People of Santa Monica are to be at the whim of Los Angeles county in order to foist upon our city severely mentally ill people requiring no background checks or sobriety requirements (per a statement made by the LA County Department of Mental Health during a community town hall conducted on Thursday, October 9th). While VERY LATE, I do appreciate Mayor Negrete’s recent memo requesting transparency, community engagement, and accountability regarding the facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
281
Common sense dictates that projects supporting severely mentally ill people having rights to come and go as they choose SHOULD NOT BE anywhere near senior facilities, preschools, elementary schools, small businesses, residents, tourists, hotels, parks, Santa Monica’s chief economy of tourism (generating millions in tax revenue supporting our essential services), — all within a half-mile radius.

The idea that installation of such a facility, risking GREAT potential WITHOUT full public input, clear information, thoughtful consideration of available citywide resources (e.g., law enforcement, fire and rescue services, etc.), neighborhood safety, tourism,and existing financial stresses perplexes the mind. City leadership should have grave concerns over negligence lawsuits generated should this installation actually occur. Without the rigor of full impact/environmental study of the potential fallout, our city and Los Angeles County may have even graver legal concerns. And rightfully, injured parties may also consider pursuing legal endeavors that entertain personal capacity. On the very good chance that Santa Monica law is being pre-empted, legal matters will ensue.

Our city is already under significant financial stress, and we must ensure that every funding decision protects our broader economic health. We WILL NOT be able to serve ANY vulnerable souls if we cannot maintain our financials.

Negrete’s call for transparency, zoning clarity, and proper community engagement is the only proper path forward. Our fair city is organized by Charter giving a weighted voice to The People of Santa Monica. The entire Council should support efforts to bring accountability and balance to this incoming disaster – and minimally pause the opening of these facilities until all due diligence has been conducted, public hearings have been held, AND the public’s desires influence the final outcome. I’d bet big money, after transparency, the ability to install such facilities will evaporate like dew in the sun.

The community-centric measures outlined in the City of Santa Monica’s Homelessness Strategic Plan calls for transparency stating the effort to be: “Transparent… We strive to communicate clearly and openly, sharing our intentions, decisions, and results to foster the trust of our community.” We can clearly observe failure on this point. The mission statement goes further to “promote the wellbeing of all”. And here’s the second noted failure as regards 413/825 Ocean Avenue. THE ONLY WAY this Homelessness Strategic Plan "serves the well being of all" will be TO NOT INSTALL the facility in the presently proposed locations.

And finally, it is clear the City of Santa Monica is hostage to ‘managed decline’. Since 2016, the face of the entire city has changed. This is by purposeful design to birth a 15 minute city, despite many declarations of ignorance while failing to serve The People of Santa Monica. At this point, the actions and words rarely collide making the less than transparent city plan cast a mighty shadow (meaning, average people can see through the nonsense). Conduct yourselves accordingly. And Ms. Negrete, you may have throne chasers after your seat.

Best,
Melanie Wise
Santa Monican
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
282
Mitchell Kois
From: Claudia Matles <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 11:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16 Negrete

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
283
Mitchell Kois
From: Jennifer Broder <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:42 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Delay Opening of Proposed Mental Health Facilities with Voluntary Entry/Exit Procedures at 413/825 Ocean Ave Per Item 16-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to strongly urge you to support item 16B and our legal, due process rights under SB326.

The Good Neighbor Policy requirement (via SB326) was not followed and is a clear violation of our due process rights.

There are multiple preschools and elementary schools in close proximity, educating thousands of elementary-aged students. The potential impact on the safety and well-being of these children and staff members cannot be overstated. It is illegal for anyone on the sex registry to live within a mile of a school and yet you will be placing nearly 50 seriously mentally ill individuals less than 1/3 of a mile from these schools and your suggested background check process is not measurable or complete.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
284
It is clear your security plan beyond the shelter is inadequate. The reputation of your owner and “partner” in this facility was highlighted in this LA Times article from last year and details serious safety concerns surrounding another one his projects:
https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2024-11-05/new-owner-cuts-security-janitors-atskid-row-homeless-housing-as-tenants-fear-worsening-conditions Simply accepting the risk and responsibility for approving this location is not acceptable. The introduction of such a facility without consideration of our legal, due process rights is dangerous.

It is your responsibility to prioritize the safety of your current community members, especially the many children who attend the impacted schools.

Protect our children, vote yes for item 16B to support transparency and our due process rights.

I look forward to your response and or support for item 16B.

Sincerely,
Jennifer
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
285
Mitchell Kois
From: Laura LIM <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:41 PM
To: Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16 - Mtg Oct 14

EXTERNAL
I am vehemently opposed to the mental health facility planned on Ocean Avenue. This is one of the worst ideas Santa Monica has ever had. An unsecured insane asylum walking distance to schools and the public at large. If you think tourism is down now, what do you think will happen when word gets out that the beach front strip of mulƟmillion dollar condos and 5 star restaurants is also home to a mental insƟtuƟon. Unbelievable.

Sincerely,
LL
Santa Monica resident and home owner
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
286
Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stop

EXTERNAL
Please do not add any sick, homeless, drug taking people to our residences or parks Jeanne Bernstein Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
287
Mitchell Kois
From: Vanessa Vlcek <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Shelters for the Severely Mentally Ill at 413/825 Ocean Ave

EXTERNAL
10/12/25
The Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401

The areas near Palisades Park are not only home to schools, senior living facilities, small businesses, and residents but also significantly support Santa Monica’s tourism economy, generating millions in annual tax revenue that support essential city services. Our city is already under significant financial stress, and we must ensure that every funding decision protects both our most vulnerable residents and our broader economic health.

We must follow the transparency, community-centric measures outlined in the City of Santa Monica’s Homelessness Strategic Plan, where one of the first stated values of the plan is to be transparent. To expand, the documents states the goal of the effort is to be:“Transparent… We strive to communicate clearly and openly, sharing our intentions, Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
288
decisions, and results to foster the trust of our community.” The mission statement of the strategic plan also claims to “promote the wellbeing of all”, but that clearly was not followed in the case of 413/825 Ocean Avenue.

Thank you for your service to our city and for considering this important item.

Sincerely,
Vanessa Vlcek
San Vicente/Ocean Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
289
Mitchell Kois
From: Alan Leavitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:33 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 16 - Negrete

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern: (everyone in Santa Monica)
>
> These faciliƟes that are planned for prime real estate and family areas in Santa Monica are dangerous and unregulated spaces that are going to bring harm to our community.
>
> It’s quite unfortunate that this was done the way it was, and the risks it brings to the community far outweigh the benefits it will bring.
>
> Please slow this process down for the proper input from the community and evaluaƟon for beƩer opƟons as this community already has enough issues it needs to deal with. >
> I support mental health treatment but would implore you to do it with proper services and oversight and community input and involvement. Done safely, ethically and transparently. >
> Thank you,
> Alan LeaviƩ
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
290
Mitchell Kois
From: Lacey Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:27 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16B Support for Negrete

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
I am submitting my objection to the homeless shelter slated to open at 413 ocean avenue for the severely mentally ill.

I have two daughters who attend school a thousand feet from the facility -- one of several schools (and preschools) in close walking distance. My mother, an elderly widow, lives even closer.

As a concerned parent, daughter and a constituent, we urge you to support item 16B, and our Due Process rights under SB326.

Sincerely,
Lacey Rose
The Hollywood Reporter
Writer-At-Large
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
291
Mitchell Kois
From: Alena <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:10 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Suspend Approval and Funding of Facilities 413 & 825 Ocean Ave in Santa Monica, CA Due to Noncompliance with State Law and City Plans

EXTERNAL
Dear Supervisor Horvath,
I am writing to express my deep concern and disappointment over the manner in which your office and the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health advanced funding and approvals for the voluntary entry/exit facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue for the unhoused and severely mentally ill without prior public notice or community engagement.

As City of Santa Monica Mayor Lana Negrete made clear in her October 9, 2025 memo to the Santa Monica City Manager, even the City of Santa Monica was “recently made aware” of the County’s actions after funding had been approved and renovations were already underway.

Residents were blindsided, left to discover this project through rumor rather than proper notification. This was not a clerical error—it was a profound failure of transparency.

The Mayor’s memo further highlights that the County and its nonprofit partners neglected to comply with Welfare and Institutions Code §5604.2(a)(4), which explicitly requires citizen and professional involvement at all stages of the planning process. That includes residents, local businesses, schools, and those directly impacted by such facilities. None of these stakeholders were given that opportunity.

Instead, this project was quietly advanced without consideration of the preschools, elementary schools, senior living facilities, and impacts on the city’s tourism hub that generates millions in revenue for a city already under fiscal strain. The secrecy surrounding this process has eroded public trust and undermined the very principles of open governance you have publicly championed.

While your office and St. Joseph Center’s newly released FAQ attempts to assure the public that the site will provide “24/7 staffing” and “enhanced security,” it is evident there is no coordinated plan to provide safety beyond the walls of these facilities, as discussed at the October 9th Town Hall, where your office, the LA County DMH, and St. Joseph’s presented. Transparency after the fact is not transparency—it’s damage control.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
292
Supervisor Horvath, the people of Santa Monica are not opposed to providing mental health care or supportive housing. We are opposed to being cut out of decisions that so profoundly affect our children, elderly, neighborhoods, schools, small businesses, safety, and economic stability.

You owe this community an explanation and must put a pause to the opening of these facilities until proper due diligence is completed in a public forum that is in compliance withthe law.

We urge you to pause the opening of the mental health facilities at 413 Ocean Avenue and 825 Ocean Avenue, and launch an investigation into the approach that was taken to approve these facilities, vendors, and sites until a full review is conducted with full transparency and meaningful public engagement.

Sincerely,
Alena Hwang
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
293
Mitchell Kois
From: Rebecca Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:10 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: Item 16B Support for Negrete

EXTERNAL
Dear Coucil members,
I am writing to strongly urge you to support item 16B and our legal, due process rights under SB326.

The Good Neighbor Policy requirement (via SB326) was not followed and is a clear violation of our due process rights.

The first public discussion on this topic took place Thursday, October 9th during a NOMA informational zoom meeting. However, it was clear the intention of St. Joseph’s and LA County was to open the facility illegally and without notice, community input. More so, fully formed operational polices or adequate safety measures to protect the surrounding neighborhood were not and have not been presented or accepted.

It is clear your security plan beyond the shelter is not complete or adequate. The reputation of your Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
294
owner and “partner” in this facility was highlighted in this LA Times article from last year and details serious safety concerns surrounding another one his projects: https://www.latimes.com/homelesshousing/story/2024-11-05/new-owner-cuts-security-janitors-at-skid-row-homeless-housing-as-tenantsfear-worsening-conditions Simply accepting the risk and responsibility for approving this location is not acceptable. The introduction of such a facility without consideration of our legal, due process rights is dangerous.

It is your responsibility to prioritize the safety of your current community members, especially the many children who attend the impacted schools.

Protect our children, vote yes for item 16B to support transparency and our due process rights.

I look forward to your response and or support for item 16B.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Lee
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
295
Mitchell Kois
From: Kaity LeMay <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:53 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected] Subject: RE: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Facilities for the Unhoused with Severe Mental Crises at 413/825 Ocean Ave

EXTERNAL
October 12, 2025
The Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[Sent via email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]]
RE: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Facilities for the Unhoused with Severe Mental Crises at 413/825 Ocean Ave
Dear Mayor Negrete, Honorable Members of the City Council, and City Manager Chi, I am writing to express my sincerest support for Mayor Negrete who has singlehandedly brought to light the nontransparent nature in which two facilities for the severely mentally ill were approved near schools, senior centers, and parks without any publicly available impact analyses, stakeholder notification, or community input per Welfare & Institutions Code §5604.2(a)(4)). I stand with my fellow Santa Monicans to request a suspension of the facilities at 413 Ocean Ave and 825 Ocean Ave until all six elements in Mayor Negrete’s memo are complete and publicly posted, particularly Item #6, which asks for a citywide comprehensive and transparent site review process for such facilities.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
296
Her leadership reminds us that compassion and accountability are not opposing values—they are inseparable. A community that truly cares about its most vulnerable must also care deeply about how decisions are made, how funds are spent, and how every stakeholder is treated.

Sincerely,
Kaity LeMay
Resident of Brentwood, Los Angeles & Parent at Carlthorp School, Santa Monica cc: Third District Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
297
Mitchell Kois
From: Lisa Ling <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:53 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Facilities for the Unhoused with Severe Mental Crises at 413/825 Ocean Ave

EXTERNAL
The Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mayor Negrete, Honorable Members of the City Council, and City Manager Chi, I am writing to strongly urge you to support item 16B and our legal, due process rights under SB326.

The Good Neighbor Policy requirement (via SB326) was not followed and is a clear violation of our due process rights.

As a homeowner in Santa Monica for over 15 years, I am outraged to have learned of the designation of 413 and 825 Ocean Ave. as “acute mental health facilities,” just LAST week and their planned opening THIS month. There are more than a thousand elementary school children who attend schools within walking distance to the facilities. Neither Roosevelt, Carlthorp or Canyon Schools have parking for parents, therefore children under 12 are walking everyday to get to schools.

To be springing this on a community without any prior public notice or engagement about safety protocols is utterly reprehensible. The lack of transparency is why people have totally lost faith in government, especially when it obvious that someone is profiting handsomely for this total disregard for the community.

Those suffering from mental illness deserve proper support that includes resources, drug treatment, programming—none of which can be easily accessed in a community where there is nothing around but schools and parks where children and elderly roam.

Members of this council have been aware of this project and neglected to share with the community— including the police department, how to ensure safety when no criminal background checks are required, no drug testing and an open door policy.

If residents can stay 90 days, we are talking about potentially hundreds of very sick people cycling through these facilities —only 15 of whom are required to be from Santa Monica. With no resources in the immediate area, what are people going to do?
WHO WILL LIABLE WHEN THERE IS AN INCIDENT?
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
298
Santa Monica deserves better than silence and secrecy. We deserve accountability. WE DESERVE DUE PROCESS!
Lisa Ling
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
299
Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: mentlhealth

EXTERNAL
not at this locaƟon, more suited in Victorvile or Lancaster,Riversie.

M Lachman 117 Fraser Santa Monica
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
300
Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: mental health on ocean ave

EXTERNAL
NIMBY on this locaƟon- Victorvile or Lancaster more suited for it.

Mitchell lachamn
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
301
Mitchell Kois
From: Cassandra Bujarski <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:33 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]
Subject: Re: 413 Ocean Ave. and 825 Ocean Ave--Request For Action at This Week's Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Honorable Members of the City Council:

As a resident of Santa Monica, I am wriƟng to express my dismay at the non-transparent nature in which two faciliƟes for severely mentally ill homeless individuals were approved near schools, senior centers, and parks without any publicly available impact analyses, stakeholder noƟficaƟon, or community input per Welfare & InsƟtuƟons Code §5604.2(a)(4)).

I stand with many fellow Santa Monicans to request a suspension of the faciliƟes at 413 Ocean Ave and 825 Ocean Ave the ("Ocean Projects") unƟl all six elements in Mayor Negrete’s memo of October 9 (Item 16B on this week's Council agenda) are complete and publicly posted, parƟcularly item #6 therein, which asks for a citywide comprehensive and transparent site review process for such faciliƟes.

While Mayor Nagrete's Item 16B appears to be focused on future faciliƟes and prospecƟve communicaƟon on the Ocean Projects, I request that these items apply retroacƟvely to the Ocean Projects, which should be subjected to the same benefit of transparency as promised on page 5 of the City of Santa Monica's Homelessness Strategic Plan: "We strive to communicate clearly and openly, sharing our intenƟons, decisions, and results to foster the trust of our community." That trust has been seriously compromised.

These provisions are designed to guarantee that the voices of those with lived experience of mental illness, along with tenants, homeowners, local businesses, and first responders, are all heard, respected, and accounted for – parƟcularly as our city faces significant financial shorƞalls.

Calling for clarity on permiƫng, zoning, environmental consideraƟons, public safety consideraƟons, transparency in developer pracƟces, and robust public outreach is not a barrier to progress, but rather a way to foster the trust of our community. Let's match compassion with competence, strengthening our collecƟve ability to help people heal, stabilize, and reintegrate the ill into the community. A community that truly cares about its most vulnerable must also care deeply about how decisions are made, how funds are spent, and how every stakeholder is treated Los Angeles County should not be driving decisions that impact all of our communiƟes without accountability, and thus, we simultaneously call on Third District LA County Supervisor Lindsay Horvath to intervene, to both pause funding for these projects and support Mayor Negrete’s detailed request--as applied to the Ocean Projects.

In conclusion, we respecƞully request your support for all six requests in Mayor Negrete’s memo and pause the opening of the faciliƟes at 413 Ocean and 825 Ocean unƟl all the perƟnent disclosures and analyses are posted and shared with the public. Thank you for your service to our city and for considering this important item.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
302
Sincerely,
Cassandra Bujarski
212 20th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
303
Mitchell Kois
From: Freida Dubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Subject: 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue

EXTERNAL
I oppose the homeless mental health facilities planned for 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue.

As a Santa Monica resident for over 40 years who lives a few blocks from these facilities, it is unwise to have these facilities across the street from the park where there are many people, including families with children. Many times, I have seen homeless and/or mentally ill people screaming, annoying, and threatening people in the park, littering, and destroying park property with no accountability. There is a real likelihood that they will wind up supervised or unsupervised in the park and cause fear and harm to residents. There is also the likelihood that other homeless mentally ill people will congregate around those facilities and across the street at the park.

When I first moved here, I felt very safe going to the park. That is no longer true. I no longer use the restrooms as there are no dedicated women's facilities and with homeless men near the restrooms, I do not feel safe. As you were elected to represent Santa Monica residents, you need to consider their concerns.

Freida Dubin
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
304
Mitchell Kois
From: Catherine Jayne <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Regarding supportive housing 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue

EXTERNAL
Oct. 12, 2025
The Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[Sent via email: [email protected]; [email protected]] RE: Lack of Public Transparency and Compliance with the City’s Homelessness Strategic Plan / Request to Delay Opening of Proposed Mental Health Facilities with Voluntary Entry/Exit Procedures at 413 & 825 Ocean Ave, Per Item 16-B Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, First off, I write to offer my heartfelt support and appreciation for Mayor Lana Negrete who has been a staunch supporter of every Santa Monican, as she seeks transparency for all our communities – both retrospectively and prospectively. In her memo associated with Item 16-B, she has constructively outlined a way forward for the entire city to engage on the important decisions surrounding the compassionate care of the city’s unhoused populations, and particularly those with severe mental health challenges.

In addition, I am writing as a Santa Monica resident to express my concerns about the secretive negotiations between unnamed City Council Members, the City’s Housing and Human Services Department (HHS), the County Department of Mental Health (DMH) to fund – with taxpayer money – a 49-bed facility for the unhoused and several mentally ill. This project, according to the CEO of St. Joseph’s Center, was brought forward to the County only once a private developer who is currently suing the City of Santa Monica, sought out the County and St. Joseph’s to offer up his sites at 413 Ocean Avenue and 825 Ocean Avenue. During a 10/9 Townhall organized by the North of Montana Association (NOMA), the LA County Department of Mental Health shared – for the first time with the community – that no background checks or sobriety requirements would be in place at these new facilities, and that those accepted at these facilities could voluntary enter and exit with no supervision plan beyond the facilities’ walls.

While residents of Santa Monica must notify their surrounding neighbors for a mere hedge modification or expansion of a school sports court, no courtesy was provided to the community on this project that has significant reverberations throughout the entire City. The secrecy in which this project was approved without any public notification and its citywide financial/staffing burden is grossly negligent.

As such, we want to record our opposition to this project and provide full support for Item 16-B on the October 14, 2025 City Council agenda, corresponding to Mayor Negrete’s October 9, 2025 excellent and fair memorandum titled “Request for City Council Direction on Community Engagement, Zoning Clarity, and Accountability for LA County and Nonprofit Operated Housing Projects.” This proposal offers a thoughtful and balanced framework that promotes compassion and transparency while ensuring accountability, public safety, and community trust for the entire population of Santa Monica. While this item is specific to one community currently, every single community in Santa Monica deserves notification and public input in any projects that affect their community, writ large. Sunset Park, Pico Blvd, and Palisades Park have shown that while it is these communities today, it can be any neighborhood tomorrow.

We request the City and County work together to request a delay of the project at 413/825 Ocean Ave. until all of the items in 16-B have been discussed in public hearings and a new analysis explaining the rationale behind this project, the alternative sites that were considered, and if the County made a decision that is in compliance with the needs defined by the City, its residents, and other stakeholders.

Specifically, as it relates to Item 16-B:

3. Clarification of Zoning and Public Notification Requirements Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
305
Direction #3 requests clarification of zoning classifications, use types, and public notice procedures for supportive, shelter, and transitional housing projects. Clear zoning definitions protect both residents and service providers by establishing predictable rules and preventing misunderstandings about what types of uses are permitted “by right.” Ensuring that every neighborhood receives formal notice when a project is proposed is an essential safeguard for democratic participation. Every Santa Monican deserves to understand what are allowable uses for the buildings in their communities, particularly around communities that serve children and seniors.

4. Public Explanation of Land Use and Operational Standards Direction #4 calls for a clear public explanation of the legal basis that allows these facilities to operate without a discretionary City permit. Residents must understand the distinctions between a mental health facility, a transitional housing facility, an emergency shelter, and supportive housing—and how each is governed under City and State law. The Mayor’s proposed public communications strategy—including a dedicated FAQ webpage, hotline for concerns, and clear follow-up protocols—is precisely the kind of accessible, fact-based communication the community needs. The fact that no one has yet been able to access any public documentation regarding the process and application in which these facilities were approved and funded with taxpayer funds speaks to the lack of transparency the law requires.

5. Verification of Developer Qualifications and Financial Transparency Direction #5’s call for verification of the developer’s goals, operational record, legal standing, and compensation from LA County is essential for accountability. Residents have a right to know who is behind these projects, how public funds are being used, and whether any conflicts of interest or active litigation exist. This transparency builds confidence in both the City’s and County’s stewardship of public resources, and that site selection is driven by thoughtful due diligence, published documentation, and needs analyses that demonstrate funding needs are matched to the highest and best use, instead of driven by calls from developers who are seeking subsidized operations while they seek entitlements.

6. Retrospective Review and Corrective Action
Direction #6 ensures that the entire City of Santa Monica benefits from a thoughtful approach to compassionate care. We must learn from past experience by reviewing similar projects in Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood. If community engagement was inadequate in earlier projects, the City should take corrective steps now—establishing consistent contact systems, feedback channels, and neighborhood support mechanisms. This proactive stance prevents repeated errors and strengthens long-term public trust. Given the City’s financial challenges with cut services, particularly in public safety, we must provide support to all affected services across the City that no department is overly burdened by County-driven decisions that silence City taxpayers.

Thank you for your leadership in ensuring Santa Monica’s approach to mental health and homelessness remains both compassionate and responsible.

To that end, please work with our community and the County to pause the opening of the unlocked mental illness facilities at 413/825 Ocean Ave.

Sincerely,
Catherine Jayne
305 Georgina Ave.

Catherine Jayne, Ph.D.

Cal Real Estate License No: 01433947
310-738-5101
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
306
Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:26 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: 413 and 825 Ocean avenue
Attachments: City of SM - Item 16-B - Detailed Letter re Mayor's Memo.docx

EXTERNAL
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
October 12, 2025
The Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[Sent via email: [email protected]; [email protected]] RE: Request to Delay Opening of Proposed Mental Health Facilities with Voluntary Entry/Exit Procedures at 413/825 Ocean Ave Per Item 16-B Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing as a Santa Monica resident to express my concerns about the secretive negotiations between unnamed City Council Members, the City’s Housing and Human Services Department (HHS), the County Department of Mental Health (DMH) to fund – with taxpayer money – a 49-bed facility for the unhoused and several mentally ill. This project, according to the CEO of St. Joseph’s Center, was brought forward to the County only once a private developer who is currently suing the City of Santa Monica, sought out the County and St. Joseph’s to offer up his sites at 413 Ocean Avenue and 825 Ocean Avenue.

We request the City and County work together to request a delay of the project at 413/825 Ocean Ave. until all of the items in 16-B have been discussed in public hearings and a new analysis explaining the rationale behind this project, the alternative sites that were considered, and if the County made a decision that is in compliance with the needs defined by the City and its residents.

Specifically, as it relates to Item 16-B:

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025

4. Public Explanation of Land Use and Operational Standards Direction #4 calls for a clear public explanation of the legal basis that allows these facilities to operate without a discretionary City permit. Residents must understand the distinctions between a mental health facility, a transitional housing facility, an emergency shelter, and supportive housing—and how each is governed under City and State law. The Mayor’s proposed public communications strategy—including a dedicated FAQ webpage, hotline for concerns, and clear follow-up protocols—is precisely the kind of accessible, fact-based communication the community needs. The fact that no one has yet been able to access any public documentation regarding the process and application in which these facilities were approved and funded with taxpayer funds speaks to the lack of transparency the law requires.

5. Verification of Developer Qualifications and Financial Transparency Direction #5’s call for verification of the developer’s goals, operational record, legal standing, and compensation from LA County is essential for accountability. Residents have a right to know who is behind these projects, how public funds are being used, and whether any conflicts of interest or active litigation exist. This transparency builds confidence in both the City’s and County’s stewardship of public resources, and that site selection is driven by thoughtful due diligence, published documentation, and needs analyses that demonstrate funding needs are matched to the highest and best use, instead of driven by calls from developers who are seeking subsidized operations while they seek entitlements.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025

6. Retrospective Review and Corrective Action
Direction #6 ensures that the entire City of Santa Monica benefits from a thoughtful approach to compassionate care. We must learn from past experience by reviewing similar projects in Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood. If community engagement was inadequate in earlier projects, the City should take corrective steps now—establishing consistent contact systems, feedback channels, and neighborhood support mechanisms. This proactive stance prevents repeated errors and strengthens long-term public trust. Given the City’s financial challenges with cut services, particularly in public safety, we must provide support to all affected services across the City that no department is overly burdened by County-driven decisions that silence City taxpayers.

Sincerely,
Norman Galper
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
307
Mitchell Kois
From: Jason Bergsman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:20 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 413 Ocean Ave. and 825 Ocean Ave--Request For Action at This Week's Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Honorable Members of the City Council:

As a resident of Santa Monica, I am writing to express my dismay at the non-transparent nature in which two facilities for severely mentally ill homeless individuals were approved near schools, senior centers, and parks without any publicly available impact analyses, stakeholder notification, or community input per Welfare & Institutions Code §5604.2(a)(4)).

I stand with many fellow Santa Monicans to request a suspension of the facilities at 413 Ocean Ave and 825 Ocean Ave the ("Ocean Projects") until all six elements in Mayor Negrete’s memo of October 9 (Item 16B on this week's Council agenda) are complete and publicly posted, particularly item #6 therein, which asks for a citywide comprehensive and transparent site review process for such facilities.

While Mayor Nagrete's Item 16B appears to be focused on future facilities and prospective communication on the Ocean Projects, I request that these items apply retroactively to the Ocean Projects, which should be subjected to the same benefit of transparency as promised on page 5 of the City of Santa Monica's Homelessness Strategic Plan: "We strive to communicate clearly and openly, sharing our intentions, decisions, and results to foster the trust of our community." That trust has been seriously compromised.

The city should seek a fair process that "promotes the wellbeing of all", including residents, when expending taxpayer funds--whatever their source--to address homelessness, in compliance with state law and the spirit of our City’s Strategic Plan on Homelessness, which both require community and professional involvement at every stage. These provisions are designed to guarantee that the voices of those with lived experience of mental illness, along with tenants, homeowners, local businesses, and first responders, are all heard, respected, and accounted for – particularly as our city faces significant financial shortfalls.

Calling for clarity on permitting, zoning, environmental considerations, public safety considerations, transparency in developer practices, and robust public outreach is not a barrier to progress, but rather a way to foster the trust of our community. Let's match compassion with competence, strengthening our collective ability to help people heal, stabilize, and reintegrate the ill into the community. A community that truly cares about its most vulnerable must also care deeply about how decisions are made, how funds are spent, and how every stakeholder is treated
.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
308
Los Angeles County should not be driving decisions that impact all of our communities without accountability, and thus, we simultaneously call on Third District LA County Supervisor Lindsay Horvath to intervene, to both pause funding for these projects and support Mayor Negrete’s detailed request--as applied to the Ocean Projects.

In conclusion, we respectfully request your support for all six requests in Mayor Negrete’s memo and pause the opening of the facilities at 413 Ocean and 825 Ocean until all the pertinent disclosures and analyses are posted and shared with the public. Thank you for your service to our city and for considering this important item.

Sincerely,
Jason Bergsman
212 20th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
309
Mitchell Kois
From: Bahereh Enayati <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Proposal for metal facility

EXTERNAL
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed mental health facility on Ocean Avenue. I am a longtime resident of Santa Monica and have been a proud member of this community. Over the years, I have witnessed a heartbreaking decline in the safety, charm, and desirability of our once-great city — largely due to a series of ill-conceived decisions made by city and governmental agencies.

Placing a mental health institution on Ocean Avenue — one of the most iconic, valuable, and beautiful stretches of real estate in the entire country — is beyond belief. This decision defies logic, community values, and common sense. It demonstrates a complete disregard for residents, property owners, and families who have built their lives here.

As a resident I no longer feel safe walking the streets of Santa Monica. What used to be a peaceful and vibrant community has become a place where residents feel vulnerable and on edge. Children can no longer safely ride their bikes or walk to school without concern. This is not the Santa Monica I moved in nearly fave decades ago and were proud to call our home.

There are countless other locations far more suitable for such a facility — areas that would not compromise the safety, character, and economic vitality of our city’s most treasured neighborhood. Choosing Ocean Avenue, of all places, shows a deep misunderstanding of both the community’s needs and the long-term implications of this decision.

As a lifelong Santa Monica resident and property owner, I am appalled. I love this city deeply, but the continual erosion of its safety and reputation through reckless planning decisions is devastating. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider and reject this proposal.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
310
Respectfully,
Darioush Enayati
Santa Monica Native and Resident




Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
311
Mitchell Kois
From: Jennifer Leavitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:15 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 16 - Negrete

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern: (everyone in Santa Monica)
These faciliƟes that are planned for prime real estate and family areas in Santa Monica are dangerous and unregulated spaces that are going to bring harm to our community.

It’s quite unfortunate that this was done the way it was, and the risks it brings to the community far outweigh the benefits it will bring.

Please slow this process down for the proper input from the community and evaluaƟon for beƩer opƟons as this community already has enough issues it needs to deal with.

I support mental health treatment but would implore you to do it with proper services and oversight and community input and involvement. Done safely, ethically and transparently.

Thank you,
Jenni LeaviƩ
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
312
Mitchell Kois
From: Jason Bergsman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:13 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 413 Ocean Ave. and 824 Ocean Ave--Request For Action at This Week's Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Honorable Members of the City Council:

While Mayor Nagrete's Item 16B appears to be focused on future facilities and prospective communication on the Ocean Projects, I request that these items apply retroactively to the Ocean Projects, which should be subjected to the same benefit of transparency as promised on page 5 of the City of Santa Monica's Homelessness Strategic Plan--"We strive to communicate clearly and openly, sharing our intentions, decisions, and results to foster the trust of our community." That trust has been seriously compromised.

The city should seek a fair process that "promotes the wellbeing of all"--including (again quoted from the Strategic Plan) to expend taxpayer funds--whatever their source--in compliance with state law and the spirit of our City’s Strategic Plan on Homelessness, which require community and professional involvement at every stage. These provisions are designed to guarantee that the voices of those with lived experience of mental illness, along with tenants, homeowners, local businesses, and first responders, are all heard, respected, and accounted for – particularly as our city faces significant financial shortfalls.

Los Angeles County should not be driving decisions that impact all of our communities without accountability, and thus, we simultaneously call on Third District LA County Supervisor Lindsay Horvath Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
313
to intervene, to both pause funding for these projects and support Mayor Negrete’s detailed request--as applied to the Ocean Projects.

In conclusion, we respectfully request your support for all six requests in Mayor Negrete’s memo and pause the opening of the facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean until all the pertinent disclosures analyses are posted and shared with the public. Thank you for your service to our city and for considering this important item.

Sincerely,
Jason Bergsman
212 20th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
314
Mitchell Kois
From: Bahereh Enayati <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:13 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Protesting the proposed mental facility on Ocean Ave

As a female resident, I no longer feel safe walking the streets of Santa Monica. What used to be a peaceful and vibrant community has become a place where residents feel vulnerable and on edge. Children can no longer safely ride their bikes or walk to school without concern. This is not the Santa Monica I moved in nearly fave decades ago and were proud to call our home.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
315
Respectfully,
Bahereh Joy Enayati
Santa Monica Native and Resident
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
316
Mitchell Kois
From: Aleese Orr <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Subject: Request to Delay Opening at 413/825 Ocean Ave Per Item 16-B

EXTERNAL
October 12, 2025
The Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[Sent via email: [email protected]; [email protected]] RE: Request to Delay Opening of Proposed Mental Health Facilities with Voluntary Entry/Exit Procedures at 413/825 Ocean Ave Per Item 16-B
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing as a Santa Monica resident to express my concerns about the secretive negotiations between unnamed City Council Members, the City’s Housing and Human Services Department (HHS), the County Department of Mental Health (DMH) to fund – with taxpayer money – a 49-bed facility for the unhoused and several mentally ill. This project, according to the CEO of St. Joseph’s Center, was brought forward to the County only once a private developer who is currently suing the City of Santa Monica, sought out the County and St. Joseph’s to offer up his sites at 413 Ocean Avenue and 825 Ocean Avenue.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
317
We request the City and County work together to request a delay of the project at 413/825 Ocean Ave. until all of the items in 16-B have been discussed in public hearings and a new analysis explaining the rationale behind this project, the alternative sites that were considered, and if the County made a decision that is in compliance with the needs defined by the City and its residents.

Specifically, as it relates to Item 16-B:

1. Comprehensive Outreach and Communication
We strongly support Direction #1, which calls for coordination between the City, LA County Department of Mental Health (DMH), St. Joseph Center, and the project developer to ensure robust outreach to residents and nearby businesses— including the numerous schools, hotels, small businesses, and other stakeholders along Ocean Avenue and its surrounding radius. Residents and local business owners deserve timely notice and a chance to understand project goals, operations, and impacts. Transparent engagement fosters cooperation rather than conflict and ensures that city decisions reflect both compassion and local input.

Every Santa Monican deserves to understand what are allowable uses for the buildings in their communities, particularly around communities that serve children and seniors.

4. Public Explanation of Land Use and Operational Standards Direction #4 calls for a clear public explanation of the legal basis that allows these facilities to operate without a discretionary City permit. Residents must understand the distinctions between a mental health facility, a transitional housing facility, an emergency shelter, and supportive housing—and how each is governed under City and State law. The Mayor’s proposed public communications strategy—including a dedicated FAQ webpage, hotline for concerns, and clear follow-up protocols— is precisely the kind of accessible, fact-based communication the community needs. The fact that no one has yet been able to access any public documentation regarding the process and application in which these facilities were approved and funded with taxpayer funds speaks to the lack of transparency the law requires.

5. Verification of Developer Qualifications and Financial Transparency Direction #5’s call for verification of the developer’s goals, operational record, legal standing, and compensation from LA County is essential for accountability. Residents have a right to know who is behind these projects, how public funds are being used, and whether any conflicts of interest or active litigation exist. This transparency builds confidence in both the City’s and County’s stewardship of public resources, and that site selection is driven by thoughtful due diligence, published documentation, and needs analyses that demonstrate funding needs are matched to the highest and best use, instead of driven by calls from developers who are seeking subsidized operations while they seek entitlements.

6. Retrospective Review and Corrective Action
Direction #6 ensures that the entire City of Santa Monica benefits from a thoughtful approach to compassionate care. We must learn from past experience by reviewing similar projects in Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood. If community engagement was inadequate in earlier projects, the City should take corrective steps now—establishing consistent contact systems, feedback channels, and neighborhood support mechanisms. This proactive stance prevents repeated errors and strengthens long-term public trust. Given the City’s financial challenges with cut services, particularly in public safety, we must provide support to all affected services across the City that no department is overly burdened by County-driven decisions that silence City taxpayers.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
318
Conclusion
The Mayor’s memo provides a clear roadmap toward a balanced approach—one that supports mental health initiatives while demanding accountability, transparency, and respect for Santa Monica residents. I respectfully urge the City Council to adopt all six directives in full and to hold LA County and its nonprofit partners to the highest standards of openness, compliance, and community collaboration.

Sincerely,
Aleese Orr
308 Alta Ave, Santa Monica
[email protected]
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
319
Mitchell Kois
From: Yury Kapgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 9:03 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Facilities

EXTERNAL
Oct. 12, 2025
The Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401

RE: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Facilities for the Unhoused with Severe Mental Crises at 413/825 Ocean Ave Dear Mayor Negrete, Honorable Members of the City Council, and City Manager Chi, I am writing to express my sincerest support for Mayor Negrete who has singlehandedly brought to light the non-transparent nature in which two facilities for the severely mentally ill were approved near schools, senior centers, and parks without any publicly available impact analyses, stakeholder notification, or community input per Welfare & Institutions Code §5604.2(a)(4)). I stand with my fellow Santa Monicans to request a suspension of the facilities at 413 Ocean Ave and 825 Ocean Ave until all six elements in Mayor Negrete’s memo are complete and publicly posted, particularly Item #6, which asks for a citywide comprehensive and transparent site review process for such facilities.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
320
By calling for clarity on zoning, transparency in developer practices, and robust public outreach, Mayor Negrete is not creating barriers to progress—she is building trust, ensuring that our city’s compassion is matched by competence in every single neighborhood across this city. This approach strengthens our collective ability to help people heal, stabilize, and reintegrate into the community.

Thank you for your service to our city and for considering this important item.

Sincerely,
Yury Kapgan
143 Foxtail Dr, Santa Monica, CA 90402
[email protected]
cc: Third District Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
321
Mitchell Kois
From: Laurie Rosenthal <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Subject: Homeless Mental Health Facility on Ocean Avenue

EXTERNAL
Hello:

It is preposterous that the Ocean Avenue facility can open without the usual vetting that is required for all Santa Monica citizens/business owners/developers when we want to open a new business, build a new home, or even remodel an old home. The amount of procedures that must be followed is staggering.

Why is this project exempt from the law?
Please make this facility follow the rules and procedures just like everyone else.

Please do not approve this until more information is known.

Please support Item 16B.

Thank you,
Laurie Rosenthal
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
322
Mitchell Kois
From: Paul Song <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:54 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Lisa Ling
Subject: RE: Item 16B Support for Negrete

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
I am writing to strongly urge you to support item 16B and our legal, due process rights under SB326.

Before anyone brings up being a NIMBY, please know that my wife, Lisa Ling and I are extremely passionate and supportive of improving mental health services and the overall human condition. We experience unhoused mentally ill in Santa Monica on a daily basis.

Lisa has even done stories on one such individual who physically threatened to kill me in Santa Monica in the very same neighborhood where this is being opened. The individual had schizophrenia and was off all meds.
https://tv.apple.com/us/episode/las-mental-healthcrisis/umc.cmc.3uhik393y7c6iav3dakh5653z?showId=umc.cmc.4jcs236olhngke46lt58mj 5g
Ling devotes an hour to the mental illness crisis in Los Angeles and how it ties into the city’s homeless encampments. The episode opens with Ling’s first-hand experience:

Her husband and daughter were confronted and threatened by a homeless man in Santa Monica who was later arrested for burglary. Ling tracks down the man and interviews him after his incarceration.

We have learned from St. Joseph’s that individuals in this shelter will not be subject to drug testing or complete background checks, yet they will be permitted to exit and enter the facility and community freely during the day. Having experienced this violence first hand, I think it is very irresponsible and exposes our community to potential risks and unintended consequences, especially given the close proximity of schools, community parks, and local residents. We have also learned that St. Joseph's has no Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
323
prior experience with full-time live-in mental health centers and that their only mental health facilities are day only service centers, not homes.

Having already seen my oldest daughter traumatized by
such a violent encounter, I would like to highlight
that there are multiple other preschools and elementary schools in close proximity, educating thousands of
elementary-aged students.

It is your responsibility to prioritize the safety of the Santa Monica community members first, especially the many children who attend the impacted schools. And it is clear that your security plan beyond the shelter is not complete or adequate.

And this plan only sets aside a small percentage of spots for Santa Monica mentally ill unhoused residents. Why
are you asking Santa Monica residents to bear the brunt to treat a majority non-Santa Monica population.

It is clear that the Good Neighbor Policy requirement (via SB326) was not followed and is a clear violation of our due process rights.

The first public discussion on this topic took place Thursday, October 9th during a NOMA informational zoom
meeting. However, it was clear the intention of St. Joseph’s and LA County was to open the facility illegally and without notice, community input. More so, fully formed operational policies or adequate safety measures to protect the surrounding neighborhood were not and have not been presented or accepted.

St. Joseph’s also shared a timeline that implicated city staff and at least 3 Council Members, all who were informed of the project since February and provided no community outreach, further violating Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
324
our rights. This is over 6 months where we could have all tried to work together for a solution, but instead this was all done in secrecy and abruptly forced upon us.

Simply accepting the risk and responsibility for approving this location and keeping the affected community in the dark is wrong and unacceptable! Especially without community knowledge or input.

Protect our children, vote yes for item 16B to support transparency and our due process rights.

I look forward to your response and or support for item 16B.

Best,
Paul Song
234 Alta Avenue
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
325
Mitchell Kois
From: Brigette Lubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; [email protected] Cc: Aaron Lubin
Subject: Re: 413 Ocean Avenue - My in-laws live 4 doors down - this is unsafe for them

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2025, at 8:49 PM, Brigette Lubin <[email protected]> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2025, at 10:46 AM, Brigette Lubin
<[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a Santa Monica resident to express my concerns about the secretive negotiations between unnamed City Council Members, the City’s Housing and Human Services Department (HHS), the County Department of Mental Health (DMH) to fund – with taxpayer money – a 49-bed facility for the unhoused and several mentally ill. This project, according to the CEO of St. Joseph’s Center, was brought forward to the County only once a private developer who is currently suing the City of Santa Monica, sought out the County and St. Joseph’s to offer up his sites at 413 Ocean Avenue and 825 Ocean Avenue.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
326
As such, we want to record our opposition to this project and provide full support for Item 16-B on the October 14, 2025 City Council agenda, corresponding to Mayor Negrete’s October 9, 2025 excellent and fair memorandum titled “Request for City Council Direction on Community Engagement, Zoning Clarity, and Accountability for LA County and Nonprofit Operated Housing Projects.” This proposal offers a thoughtful and balanced framework that promotes compassion and transparency while ensuring accountability, public safety, and community trust for the entire population of Santa Monica. While this project is specific to the community near Palisades Park, every single community in Santa Monica deserves notification and public input in any projects that affect their community, writ large. While it is this community today, it can be any community tomorrow.

We request the City and County work together to request a delay of the project at 413/825 Ocean Ave. until all of the items in 16-B have been discussed in public hearings and a new analysis explaining the rationale behind this project, the alternative sites that were considered, and if the County made a decision that is in compliance with the needs defined by the City and its residents.

Specifically, as it relates to Item 16-B:

4. Public Explanation of Land Use and Operational Standards Direction #4 calls for a clear public explanation of the legal basis that allows these facilities to operate without a discretionary City permit. Residents must understand the distinctions between a mental health facility, a transitional housing facility, an emergency shelter, and supportive housing—and how each is governed under City and State law. The Mayor’s proposed public communications strategy—including a dedicated FAQ webpage, hotline for concerns, and clear follow-up protocols—is precisely the kind of accessible, fact-based communication the community needs. The fact that no one has yet been able to access Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
327
any public documentation regarding the process and application in which these facilities were approved and funded with taxpayer funds speaks to the lack of transparency the law requires.

5. Verification of Developer Qualifications and Financial Transparency Direction #5’s call for verification of the developer’s goals, operational record, legal standing, and compensation from LA County is essential for accountability. Residents have a right to know who is behind these projects, how public funds are being used, and whether any conflicts of interest or active litigation exist. This transparency builds confidence in both the City’s and County’s stewardship of public resources, and that site selection is driven by thoughtful due diligence, published documentation, and needs analyses that demonstrate funding needs are matched to the highest and best use, instead of driven by calls from developers who are seeking subsidized operations while they seek entitlements.

This proactive stance prevents repeated errors and strengthens long-term public trust.

Given the City’s financial challenges with cut services, particularly in public safety, we must provide support to all affected services across the City that no department is overly burdened by County-driven decisions that silence City taxpayers.

Sincerely,
Brigette Lubin
653 Kingman Avenue
Santa Monica, CA
_____________________
Brigette Lubin
Ocean Showroom
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
328
Cooper Building
860 S Los Angeles St. #520
Los Angeles. CA 90014
c: 213.842.9684
[email protected]
ELAINE KIM * LUSANA * SOIA&KYO * Oliveve
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
329
Mitchell Kois
From: Scott Parish <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Cc: Helen Johns
Subject: Opposition to Ocean Avenue Mental Health Facility — Request for Full Environmental and Community Review

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, As a long term resident of Santa Monica and one with children a block from this facility, I am writing to formally oppose the proposed mental health facility on Ocean Avenue in its current form, based on procedural deficiencies, unaddressed environmental impacts, and inadequate community engagement, rather than any objection to mentalhealth services themselves.

Santa Monica has long supported inclusive and compassionate care, but this particular project raises serious concerns regarding process, location suitability, and public safety planning that warrant a full review before approval.

1. Inadequate Environmental and Impact Review (CEQA)
The project appears to have moved forward without a complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A facility of this intensity — involving 24-hour operations, emergency response coordination, and increased service calls — meets the threshold for review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Key unexamined impacts include:

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
330
 Traffic and parking load on Ocean Avenue, where existing congestion and limited curbside capacity already challenge residents and visitors.  Public safety impacts from increased emergency vehicle activity, which have not been modeled.
 Noise and light impacts from 24-hour operations in a mixed-use corridor adjacent to residential zones.

2. Procedural Irregularities and Lack of Notice
Several nearby residents report not receiving formal notice of the project’s hearings or approvals. City and county guidelines require notice to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the site. If notice was missed, this constitutes a procedural defect that invalidates prior approvals until corrected.

3. Land-Use Compatibility and Zoning Concerns
The proposed use is inconsistent with the current zoning and area plan for this section of Ocean Avenue, which prioritizes coastal access, tourism, and compatible residential density.

The facility’s operational model—essentially a hybrid residential-institutional use— requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and that CUP must demonstrate that the project will not adversely affect adjacent properties. No such finding appears in the public record.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
331

4. Public Safety and Service Burden
Data from comparable facilities in Los Angeles and Long Beach show an average increase of 25–40% in police, fire, and paramedic calls within a two-block radius during the first year of operation.

Given that Santa Monica’s emergency services are already operating above capacity, this project’s approval without a mitigation plan places both residents and clients at risk.

5. Alternative Sites and Collaborative Options
If the City and County are intent on adding a behavioral-health resource, it should be located where access to medical infrastructure, transit, and controlled campus-style environments already exists — for example, near the UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center corridor or underused public parcels zoned for institutional use.

Ocean Avenue lacks that infrastructure and will instead face operational strain.

6. Requested Actions
I respectfully request that the City Council:

1. Suspend project approvals pending a full CEQA Environmental Impact Report.

2. Require proper mailed notice and new public hearings for all affected residents and businesses.

3. Commission an independent public-safety and traffic impact study before granting any building permits.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
332

4. Engage a neighborhood working group to evaluate alternative locations or operational adjustments.

Conclusion
Santa Monica residents are not opposing mental-health care; we are asking for good planning, lawful procedure, and appropriate siting. The City has an obligation to ensure that projects of this scale meet objective environmental, safety, and procedural standards before proceeding.

Thank you for your consideration and for ensuring that development decisions are transparent, lawful, and consistent with the City’s General Plan and community values.

Scott Parish
415-818-2201
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
333
Mitchell Kois
From: Brigette Lubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:50 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Aaron Lubin
Subject: Re: 413 Ocean Avenue - My in-laws live 4 doors down - this is unsafe for them

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2025, at 10:46 AM, Brigette Lubin <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing as a Santa Monica resident to express my concerns about the secretive negotiations between unnamed City Council Members, the City’s Housing and Human Services Department (HHS), the County Department of Mental Health (DMH) to fund – with taxpayer money – a 49-bed facility for the unhoused and several mentally ill. This project, according to the CEO of St. Joseph’s Center, was brought forward to the County only once a private developer who is currently suing the City of Santa Monica, sought out the County and St. Joseph’s to offer up his sites at 413 Ocean Avenue and 825 Ocean Avenue.

We request the City and County work together to request a delay of the project at 413/825 Ocean Ave. until all of the items in 16-B have been discussed in public hearings and a new analysis Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
334
explaining the rationale behind this project, the alternative sites that were considered, and if the County made a decision that is in compliance with the needs defined by the City and its residents.

Specifically, as it relates to Item 16-B:

Enforcing these mandates ensures that mental health projects are developed with appropriate compassion for affected communities with input from residents, law enforcement, educators, housing experts, business owners, and those with lived experience. This is fidelity to the law and the spirit of partnership that newly passed state requires.

4. Public Explanation of Land Use and Operational Standards Direction #4 calls for a clear public explanation of the legal basis that allows these facilities to operate without a discretionary City permit. Residents must understand the distinctions between a mental health facility, a transitional housing facility, an emergency shelter, and supportive housing—and how each is governed under City and State law. The Mayor’s proposed public communications strategy—including a dedicated FAQ webpage, hotline for concerns, and clear follow-up protocols—is precisely the kind of accessible, fact-based communication the community needs. The fact that no one has yet been able to access any public documentation regarding the process and application in which these facilities were approved and funded with taxpayer funds speaks to the lack of transparency the law requires.

5. Verification of Developer Qualifications and Financial Transparency Direction #5’s call for verification of the developer’s goals, operational record, legal standing, and compensation from LA County is essential for accountability. Residents have a right to know who is behind these projects, how public funds are being used, and whether any conflicts of interest or active litigation exist. This transparency builds confidence in both the City’s and County’s stewardship of public resources, and that site selection is driven by thoughtful due diligence, published documentation, and needs analyses that demonstrate funding needs are matched to the highest and best use, instead of driven by calls from developers who are seeking subsidized operations while they seek entitlements.

6. Retrospective Review and Corrective Action
Direction #6 ensures that the entire City of Santa Monica benefits from a thoughtful approach to compassionate care. We must learn from past experience by reviewing similar projects in Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood. If community engagement was inadequate in earlier projects, the City should take corrective steps now—establishing consistent contact systems, feedback channels, and neighborhood support mechanisms. This proactive stance prevents repeated errors and strengthens long-term public trust. Given the City’s financial challenges with cut services, particularly in public safety, we must provide Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
335
support to all affected services across the City that no department is overly burdened by County-driven decisions that silence City taxpayers.

Sincerely,
Brigette Lubin
653 Kingman Avenue
Santa Monica, CA
_____________________
Brigette Lubin
Ocean Showroom
Cooper Building
860 S Los Angeles St. #520
Los Angeles. CA 90014
c: 213.842.9684
[email protected]
ELAINE KIM * LUSANA * SOIA&KYO * Oliveve
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
336
Mitchell Kois
From: John Rumer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Item 16 - Negrete

EXTERNAL
I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed transitional housing facility for homeless individuals with serious mental illness at 413 and 425 Ocean Avenue, as reported in The Lookout on October 6, 2025. While I support efforts to address homelessness and mental health, I am deeply concerned about the lack of transparency, community input, and oversight in this project’s planning and implementation.

Key issues include:
1 Lack of Community Notification: The City and residents were not informed until after funding was secured and permits were filed, undermining trust. This approach, as you noted, is “not how you build community trust.”
2 Public Safety Concerns: The open-door policy, allowing residents to leave the facility, raises risks in an already strained area with significant homelessness-related police calls (e.g., eight daily responses to nearby parks). The proposed 24/7security and curfew are insufficient without clear off-site supervision plans. 3 Inappropriate Location: These prime oceanfront properties, valued at millions, are in a residential and tourist-heavy zone near Palisades Park. Placing a high-acuity facility here could exacerbate local safety and quality-of-life issues.
4 Limited City Oversight: As a private project funded by the County and operated by St. Joseph Center, the City’s inability to alter or stop it—due to state mandates like Proposition 1—feels like a loss of local control.

I urge the City to:
• Advocate for relocating the facility to a less residential or tourist-centric area. • Demand enhanced safety measures, such as locked wings or mandatory off-site chaperones, to protect the community.
• Hold the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health and St. Joseph Center accountable with transparent metrics on resident screening, incident reporting, and program outcomes. • Explore legal avenues, like appealing the Change of Use Permit, to ensure proper review.

I appreciate your efforts to organize a town hall and encourage robust community engagement to address these concerns. Please keep residents informed and consider our objections before the project moves forward.

Sincerely,
John Rumer
129 Alta Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
337
Mitchell Kois
From: John Skinner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:44 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]
Subject: Request to Delay Opening of Proposed Mental Health Facilities with Voluntary Entry/Exit Procedures at 417/825 Ocean Ave Per Item 16-B

Joseph’s Center, was brought forward to the County only once a private developer who is currently suing the City of Santa Monica, sought out the County and St. Joseph’s to offer up his sites at 413 Ocean Avenue and 825 Ocean Avenue.

We request the City and County work together to request a delay of the project at 413/825 Ocean Ave. until all of the items in 16-B have been discussed in public hearings and a new analysis explaining the rationale behind this project, the alternative sites that were Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
338
considered, and if the County made a decision that is in compliance with the needs defined by the City and its residents.

Specifically, as it relates to Item 16-B:

This is fidelity to the law and the spirit of partnership that newly passed state requires.

The Mayor’s proposed public communications strategy—including a dedicated FAQ webpage, hotline for concerns, and clear follow-up protocols—is precisely the kind of accessible, factbased communication the community needs. The fact that no one has yet been able to access any public documentation regarding the process and application in which these facilities were approved and funded with taxpayer funds speaks to the lack of transparency the law requires.

5. Verification of Developer Qualifications and Financial Transparency Direction #5’s call for verification of the developer’s goals, operational record, legal standing, and compensation from LA County is essential for accountability. Residents have a right to know who is behind these projects, how public funds are being used, and whether any conflicts of interest or active litigation exist. This transparency builds confidence in both the City’s and County’s stewardship of public resources, and that site selection is driven by thoughtful due diligence, published documentation, and needs analyses that demonstrate funding needs are Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
339
matched to the highest and best use, instead of driven by calls from developers who are seeking subsidized operations while they seek entitlements.

6. Retrospective Review and Corrective Action
Direction #6 ensures that the entire City of Santa Monica benefits from a thoughtful approach to compassionate care. We must learn from past experience by reviewing similar projects in Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood. If community engagement was inadequate in earlier projects, the City should take corrective steps now—establishing consistent contact systems, feedback channels, and neighborhood support mechanisms. This proactive stance prevents repeated errors and strengthens long-term public trust. Given the City’s financial challenges with cut services, particularly in public safety, we must provide support to all affected services across the City so that no department is overly burdened by County-driven decisions that silence City taxpayers.

Conclusion
It is extremely frustrating as a lifelong Santa Monica resident to feel like the safety and well-being of the city's tax paying residents are not a priority. I am SICK AND TIRED of always hearing about important issues at the last minute. Why is it that you as politicians campaign on transparency, and yet do things like this in such a stealth manner?
The location of these facilities are near elementary schools and park land areas that are used by a ton of local residents of all ages. It only takes one awful incident from a mentally unstable person to destroy the lives of many. We have personal friends who have been impacted by awful actions of people that truly need 24 hour care. Please stand up for your constituents!!
The Mayor’s memo provides a clear roadmap toward a balanced approach—one that supports mental health initiatives while demanding accountability, transparency, and respect for Santa Monica residents. I respectfully urge the City Council to adopt all six directives in full and to hold LA County and its nonprofit partners to the highest standards of openness, compliance, and community collaboration.

Sincerely,
John Skinner
323 9th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
340
[email protected]
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
341
Mitchell Kois
From: Mayes, Mike <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:42 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: Item 16B Support for Negrete

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to strongly urge you to support item 16B and our legal, due process rights under SB326.

We have organized hundreds of people in days, soon it will be thousands, and we are all deeply concerned about the planned opening of the homeless shelter on Ocean Avenue intended to serve seriously mentally ill, drug addicted and homeless individuals.

The Good Neighbor Policy requirement (via SB326) was not followed and is a clear violation of our due process rights.

The first public discussion on this topic took place Thursday, October 9th during a NOMA informational zoom meeting. However, it was clear the intention of St. Joseph’s and LA County was to open the facility illegally and without notice, community input. More so, fully formed operational polices or adequate safety measures to protect the surrounding neighborhood were not and have not been presented or accepted.

Furthermore, I am concerned to have learned from St. Joseph’s that individuals in this shelter will not be subject to drug testing or complete background checks, yet they will be permitted to exit and and enter the facility and community freely during the day. This poses significant risks to our community, especially given the proximity of THREE elementary schools, community parks and local residents. Additionally, it was suggested that others looking for homeless services would benefit from outreach being conducted in the surrounding area, effectively putting more homeless, mentally ill and drug addicts in the neighborhood. You are not simply housing 49 people you are a beacon to everyone looking for homeless services.

It is clear your security plan beyond the shelter is not complete or adequate. The reputation of your owner and “partner” in this facility has been questioned due to questionable actions/decisions operating similar facilities.

Simply accepting the risk and responsibility for approving this location is not acceptable. The introduction of such a facility without consideration of our legal, due process rights is dangerous.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
342
It is your responsibility to prioritize the safety of your current community members, especially the many children who attend the impacted schools.

Protect our neighborhood, vote yes for item 16B to support transparency and our due process rights.

I look forward to your response and or support for item 16B.

Sincerely,
Mike Mayes
Resident of 90403 and parent at Roosevelt elementary school Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
343
Mitchell Kois
From: Sela Obot <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:41 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-Negrate

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers and Neighborhood Representatives,
I write in absolute opposition to locating a mental-health supportive housing facility at 413 and 429 Ocean Avenue. As someone who lives at 201 Ocean Avenue, I will myself and others be placed at real risk. The asserted safety improvements touted by proponents are speculative; many credible studies suggest the opposite is plausible — particularly in a dense urban neighborhood with high street activity and limited buffer zones.

Below are the reasons why crime is very likely to increase and why this proposal should be rejected outright.

Why crime will likely skyrocket

1. Empirical evidence of crime increases around similar facilities o A study of emergency winter shelters in Vancouver found a 56% increase in property crime within 100 m of an opened shelter (theft, vandalism) compared to when the shelter was closed.
o That same study noted that crime impact is highly localized to within ~400 meters (2–3 block radius).
o Although not exactly the same as a full-time supportive housing facility, these results show how proximity shelters can attract opportunistic crime. o In other settings of homeless shelters, business owners and neighbors have reported unintended negative spillover: increased loitering, petty theft, drug-use paraphernalia depositing, and safety concerns. (E.g. reports around navigation centers in Vancouver). o Thus, installing such a facility in a densely mixed-residential corridor provides fertile ground for crime “hotspotting” — especially at night, when guard supervision is lower and perimeter control is harder.

2. Routine Activity theory / criminology logic
o Theory supports the notion that increased opportunities + decreased guardianship lead to more crime. When you bring in a vulnerable population, some with histories of substance use, mental health crises, or prior criminal justice contact, the likelihood of incidents (drug dealing, trespass, disorderly behavior, confrontations) rises. The more transient or loosely monitored the population, the greater that risk.
o If internal security is lax, poorly staffed, or reactive rather than proactive, the facility becomes a magnet for external criminal actors (drug suppliers, opportunists) who exploit vulnerabilities. In effect, you’re importing crimes of opportunity, not just accommodating a “stable” group.

3. Evidence is mixed — we cannot assume “no harm”
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
344
o Supporters often point to studies that show neutral or negligible crime change after supportive housing (e.g. Been et al. 2008 found no statistically significant uptick in NYC neighborhoods). But those studies typically involve lower-acuity, rigorously monitored projects, often in denser metro contexts with more police presence and buffer populations. They are not analogous to a high-intensity mental-health facility in a narrow, high-foot-traffic corridor adjacent to residential homes. o Moreover, many academic reviews state that limited research exists on how high-acuity, lower-barrier housing (for persons with serious mental health or substance-use histories) affects crime, especially in local neighborhoods. o Hence, proponents rely on weak “no effect” conclusions — but we are not in a position to gamble on worst-case externalities.

4. Safety for women and vulnerable neighbors is especially at risk o As a woman, my fear is not abstract. Panic, harassment, confrontations, late-night breakins, disorder — these escalate quickly in transitional populations and under-resourced security.
o When security is stretched, patrols may lag, and external public areas adjacent to the facility may become staging points for illicit behavior that preys on passersby — especially in low-visibility hours. That is not paranoia; it is the predictable consequence of mixing high-risk operations next to residential zones.

Oppose it entirely, not “with conditions”
Given the elevated risk, this proposal should be flatly rejected at this location. No amount of “conditions,” “oversight,” or “staffing guarantees” can fully eliminate danger when the surrounding environment is ill-suited.

If the City insists on pursuing supportive housing, do it somewhere else — a location with:
 Wider setbacks from residential streets
 Proximity to service hubs, medical infrastructure, and police support  Fewer children’s walk routes and fewer pedestrians going by late at night  Further from schools
But here, among tightly built housing fronts on Ocean Avenue, a facility is a wrong fit.

Alternative use: serve elderly fire victims to align with zoning The property is zoned for elderly housing. If the City must repurpose, it should prioritize elderly homeowners in our community whose homes were destroyed by the Palisades fire or those who cannot afford to rebuild.

This alternative serves those who are less risky, more stable, and critically in need of housing. It would be far less burdensome to manage and would align with neighborhood character.

Final statement
 I completely reject placing a mental-health housing facility at or near 201 Ocean Avenue.  The risk of crime escalation, especially in our immediate environment, is too high to justify.  If the City wants to help, it must find another site—not in our residential corridor—and must prioritize fire-ruined elderly residents who deserve compassion, not new risks to our families.

Please record this opposition in the official file, confirm receipt, and notify me of any hearings. I will show up and speak against it.

Best,
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
345
Sela Obot
Sources:

1. https://www.santamonica.gov/crime-statistics

2. https://www.santamonica.gov/topic-explainers/crime-reports-and-statistics

3. https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/santa-monica/crime

4. https://www.areavibes.com/santa+monica-ca/crime

5. https://smdp.com

6. https://ucr.fbi.gov

7. https://www.crimemapping.com

8. https://furmancenter.org/files/publications/A3ImpactofSHonNeighborhoods_000.pdf

9. https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/Ridgeway_Effect%20of%20Emergency%20Shelter s-v5_1.2.2018.pdf

10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6659163
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
346
Mitchell Kois
From: Sean Fulp <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:35 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Cc: [email protected]; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Facilities for the Unhoused with Severe Mental Crises at 413/825 Ocean Ave Attachments: Letter to SM Mayor, Manager and City Council RE 413 & 825 Ocean Ave.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Honorable Members of the City Council, and City Manager Chi, I am writing to express my sincerest support for Mayor Negrete who has single handedly brought to light the non-transparent nature in which two facilities for the severely mentally ill were approved near schools, senior centers, and parks without any publicly available impact analyses, stakeholder notification, or community input per Welfare & Institutions Code §5604.2(a)(4). I stand with my fellow Santa Monicans to request a suspension of the facilities at 413 Ocean Ave and 825 Ocean Ave until all six elements in Mayor Negrete’s memo are complete and publicly posted, particularly Item #6, which asks for a citywide comprehensive and transparent site review process for such facilities.

The issue is not about opposing care, it is about ensuring that care is delivered responsibly, safely, cost effectively, and with dignity for all. The Mayor’s call for coordination between the City, Los Angeles County, and nonprofit providers ensures that these projects will be guided by expertise, empathy, and accountability. The community should be viewed as partners in this endeavor, to help all parties achieve the outcomes that benefit the wellbeing of all, which is one of the stated mission in the City’s Homelessness Strategic Plan.

By calling for clarity on zoning, transparency in developer practices, and robust public outreach, Mayor Negrete is not creating barriers to progress, she is building trust, ensuring that our city’s compassion is matched by competence in every single neighborhood across this city. This approach strengthens our collective ability to help people heal, stabilize, and reintegrate into the community.

Her leadership reminds us that compassion and accountability are not opposing values, they are inseparable. A community that truly cares about its most vulnerable must also care deeply about how decisions are made, how funds are spent, and how every stakeholder is treated.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
347
I stand in full support of Mayor Negrete’s efforts to make Santa Monica a model for both compassionate care and transparent governance. Los Angeles County should not be driving decisions that impact all of our communities without accountability, and thus, we simultaneously call on Third District LA County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath to intervene – to both pause funding for these projects and support Mayor Negrete’s detailed request.

Sincerely,
Sean Fulp 3019 Wilshire Blvd, #138 Santa Monica, CA
cc: Third District Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
October 12, 2025
The Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[Sent via email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]]
RE: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Facilities for the Unhoused with Severe Mental Crises at 413/825 Ocean Ave Dear Mayor Negrete, Honorable Members of the City Council, and City Manager Chi, I am writing to express my sincerest support for Mayor Negrete who has singlehandedly brought to light the non-transparent nature in which two facilities for the severely mentally ill were approved near schools, senior centers, and parks without any publicly available impact analyses, stakeholder notification, or community input per Welfare & Institutions Code §5604.2(a)(4)). I stand with my fellow Santa Monicans to request a suspension of the facilities at 413 Ocean Ave and 825 Ocean Ave until all six elements in Mayor Negrete’s memo are complete and publicly posted, particularly Item #6, which asks for a citywide comprehensive and transparent site review process for such facilities.

Docusign Envelope ID: BE1D0320-964F-4A8F-B3CE-8BB343343657 Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
By calling for clarity on zoning, transparency in developer practices, and robust public outreach, Mayor Negrete is not creating barriers to progress—she is building trust, ensuring that our city’s compassion is matched by competence in every single neighborhood across this city. This approach strengthens our collective ability to help people heal, stabilize, and reintegrate into the community.

Sincerely,
Sean Fulp
3019 Wilshire Blvd, #138
Santa Monica, CA
cc: Third District Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath Docusign Envelope ID: BE1D0320-964F-4A8F-B3CE-8BB343343657 Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
348
Mitchell Kois
From: Dena Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:36 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Ocean Avenue Homeless Shelter - Item 16B Support for Negrete Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
I am writing to strongly urge you to support item 16B and our legal, due process rights under SB326.

The Good Neighbor Policy requirement (via SB326) was not followed and is a clear violation of our due process rights.

St. Joseph’s also shared a timeline that implicated city staƯ and at least 3 Councilmember’s, all who were informed of the project since February and provided no community outreach, further violating our rights.

Furthermore, I am concerned to have learned from St. Joseph’s that individuals in this shelter will not be subject to drug testing or complete background checks, yet they will be permitted to exit and and enter the facility and community freely during the day. This poses significant risks to our community, especially given the proximity of schools, community parks and local residents. Additionally, it was suggested that others looking for homeless services would benefit from outreach being conducted in the surrounding area, eƯectively putting more homeless, mentally ill and drug addicts in the neighborhood. You are not simply housing 49 people you are a beacon to everyone looking for homeless services.

Personally, I would like to highlight that the elementary school my children attend, Carlthorp School, is located just 0.3 miles from the planned shelter location. In addition to Carlthorp, multiple other preschools and elementary schools in close proximity, educating thousands of elementary-aged students. The potential impact on the safety and well-being of these children and staƯ members cannot be overstated. It is illegal for anyone on the sex registry to live within a mile of a school and your suggested background check process is not measurable or complete.

It is clear your security plan beyond the shelter is not complete or adequate. The reputation of your owner and “partner” in this facility was highlighted in this LA Times article from last year and details serious safety Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
349
concerns surrounding another one his projects: https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2024-11- 05/new-owner-cuts-security-janitors-at-skid-row-homeless-housing-as-tenants-fear-worsening-conditions Simply accepting the risk and responsibility for approving this location is not acceptable. The introduction of such a facility without consideration of our legal, due process rights is dangerous.

It is your responsibility to prioritize the safety of your current community members, especially the many children who attend the impacted schools.

Protect our children, vote yes for item 16B to support transparency and our due process rights.

I look forward to your response and or support for item 16B.

Sincerely,
Dena Cook
Dena Cook | Co-founder
310.600.7160
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
350
Mitchell Kois
From: Aaron Lubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:33 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 413 Ocean Ave.; my elderly parents live at 433 Ocean Ave...

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing as a Santa Monica resident (as well as on behalf of my 86 year-old parents) to express my concerns about the secretive negotiations between unnamed City Council Members, the City’s Housing and Human Services Department (HHS), the County Department of Mental Health (DMH) to fund – with taxpayer money – a 49-bed facility for the unhoused and several mentally ill. This project, according to the CEO of St. Joseph’s Center, was brought forward to the County only once a private developer who is currently suing the City of Santa Monica, sought out the County and St. Joseph’s to offer up his sites at 413 Ocean Avenue and 825 Ocean Avenue.

We request the City and County work together to request a delay of the project at 413/825 Ocean Ave. until all of the items in 16-B have been discussed in public hearings and a new analysis explaining the rationale behind this project, the alternative sites that were considered, and if the County made a decision that is in compliance with the needs defined by the City and its residents.

Specifically, as it relates to Item 16-B:

1. Comprehensive Outreach and Communication
We strongly support Direction #1, which calls for coordination between the City, LA County Department of Mental Health (DMH), St. Joseph Center, and the project developer to ensure robust outreach to residents and nearby businesses— including the numerous schools, hotels, small businesses, and other stakeholders along Ocean Avenue and its surrounding radius. Residents and local business owners deserve timely notice and a chance to understand project goals, operations, and impacts. Transparent engagement fosters cooperation rather than conflict and ensures that city decisions reflect both compassion and local input.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
351

Every Santa Monican deserves to understand what are allowable uses for the buildings in their communities, particularly around communities that serve children and seniors.

4. Public Explanation of Land Use and Operational Standards Direction #4 calls for a clear public explanation of the legal basis that allows these facilities to operate without a discretionary City permit. Residents must understand the distinctions between a mental health facility, a transitional housing facility, an emergency shelter, and supportive housing—and how each is governed under City and State law. The Mayor’s proposed public communications strategy—including a dedicated FAQ webpage, hotline for concerns, and clear follow-up protocols— is precisely the kind of accessible, fact-based communication the community needs. The fact that no one has yet been able to access any public documentation regarding the process and application in which these facilities were approved and funded with taxpayer funds speaks to the lack of transparency the law requires.

5. Verification of Developer Qualifications and Financial Transparency Direction #5’s call for verification of the developer’s goals, operational record, legal standing, and compensation from LA County is essential for accountability. Residents have a right to know who is behind these projects, how public funds are being used, and whether any conflicts of interest or active litigation exist. This transparency builds confidence in both the City’s and County’s stewardship of public resources, and that site selection is driven by thoughtful due diligence, published documentation, and needs analyses that demonstrate funding needs are matched to the highest and best use, instead of driven by calls from developers who are seeking subsidized operations while they seek entitlements.

6. Retrospective Review and Corrective Action
Direction #6 ensures that the entire City of Santa Monica benefits from a thoughtful approach to compassionate care. We must learn from past experience by reviewing similar projects in Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood. If community engagement was inadequate in earlier projects, the City should take corrective steps now—establishing consistent contact systems, feedback channels, and neighborhood support mechanisms. This proactive stance prevents repeated errors and strengthens long-term public trust. Given the City’s financial challenges with cut services, particularly in public safety, we must provide support to all affected services across the City that no department is overly burdened by County-driven decisions that silence City taxpayers.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
352
Best,
Aaron Lubin
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
353
Mitchell Kois
From: Donna Ferrentino <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:31 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 16B Support for Negrete

EXTERNAL

I stand with my fellow Santa Monicans to request an immediate psuspension of the facilities at 413 Ocean Ave and 825 Ocean Ave until all six elements in Mayor Negrete’s memo are complete and publicly posted, particularly Item #6, which asks for a citywide comprehensive and transparent site review process for such facilities.

While tonight’s item appears to only be relevant to the two addresses above, this issue has citywide implications as it demonstrates that our city lacks a process to expend taxpayer funds in compliance with state law and the spirit of our City’s Strategic Plan on Homelessness, which require community and professional involvement at every stage. These provisions are designed to guarantee that the voices of those with experience of mental illness, along with residents, local businesses, and first responders, are all heard, respected, and accounted for – particularly as our city faces significant financial shortfalls.

The issue is not about opposing care—it is about ensuring that care is delivered responsibly, safely, cost effectively, and with dignity for all.

The Mayor’s call for coordination between the City, Los Angeles County, and nonprofit providers ensures that these projects will be guided by expertise, empathy, and accountability. The community should be viewed as partners in this endeavor, to help all parties achieve the outcomes that benefit the wellbeing of all, which is one of the stated mission in the City’s Homelessness Strategic Plan.

By calling for clarity on zoning, transparency in developer practices, and robust public outreach, Mayor Negrete is not creating barriers to progress—she is building trust, ensuring that our city’s compassion is matched by competence in every single neighborhood across Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
354
this city. This approach strengthens our collective ability to help people heal, stabilize, and reintegrate into the community.

Sincerely,
Donna Ferrentino
868 BrookTree Road
LA CA 90272
Rustic Canyon Resident
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
355
Mitchell Kois
From: Sean Casto <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:25 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 16- Negrete . Opposing the project
Attachments: Opposition_Letter_Sean_Casto.docx

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
Please see my letter in opposition of the project on 413/825 Ocean Avenue attached Warmest Regards,
Sean
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Subject: Item 16-Negrete – Opposition to Homeless Shelter Project at 413/825 Ocean Avenue
Dear Mayor Negrete and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed homeless shelter developments at 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue. I recognize the need to address homelessness and mental health issues in our community, but placing such a facility in a dense residential and family area is not the right approach.

The proposed sites sit across from a park filled with children every day, as well as seniors and local families who rely on that space for recreation. This proposal poses significant safety and quality-of-life concerns. Our city already struggles to manage the growing crisis of homelessness, and adding another intensive-use facility here will only strain our already limited resources.

This project risks creating unsafe conditions, depressing property values, and undermining the progress our community has made in improving safety and livability. I urge the Council to consider alternative sites that balance compassion with practicality and safety for all residents.

Thank you for considering the voices of local families who care deeply about the future of Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Sean Casto
201 Ocean Ave., Apt. 1006B
Santa Monica, California
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
356
Mitchell Kois
From: Amara Teresa Hastings <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:28 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: 413 & 825 Ocean Avenue Mental Health Facilities

EXTERNAL
RE: Item 16B Support for Negrete
Dear Coucilmembers,
I am writing to strongly urge you to support item 16B and our legal, due process rights under SB326.

I am deeply concerned about the planned opening of the homeless shelters on Ocean Avenue intended to serve 49 seriously mentally ill, drug addicted and homeless individuals. Especially the one on Ocean at Georgina, closest to my home.

The Good Neighbor Policy requirement (via SB326) was not followed and is a clear violation of our due process rights.

In Santa Monica it takes so much effort to get permits to do simple home maintenance work. And I personally spent a lot of time, and energy supporting the creation of the Rainbow Garden on Montana and 4th, as the city talked to neighbors, had public input, etc. That was for a GARDEN. And now there apparently were secretive plans to allow a shelter for mentally ill people at the end of our street without any public conversation at all. This is unacceptable.

The first public discussion on this topic took place on Thursday, October 9th during a NOMA informational zoom meeting. However, it was clear the intention of St. Joseph’s and LA County was to open the facility illegally and without notice, or community input. More so, fully formed operational polices or adequate safety measures to protect the surrounding neighborhood were not and have not been presented or accepted.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
357
It is clear your security plan beyond the shelter is not complete or adequate. The reputation of your owner and “partner” in this facility was highlighted in this LA Times article from last year and details serious safety concerns surrounding another one his projects: https://www.latimes.com/homelesshousing/story/2024-11-05/new-owner-cuts-security-janitors-at-skid-row-homeless-housing-as-tenantsfear-worsening-conditions Simply accepting the risk and responsibility for approving this location is not acceptable. The introduction of such a facility without consideration of our legal, due process rights is dangerous.

It is your responsibility to prioritize the safety of your current community members, especially the many children who live in the neighborhood and attend the impacted schools.

Protect our neighborhood, vote yes for item 16B to support transparency and our due process rights.

I look forward to your response and or support for item 16B.

Please see and sign this petition! It has grown significantly in numbers in a matter of just a few days. https://c.org/48yK5yYxtj
Sincerely,
Amara Hastings
Georgina Avenue Resident
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
358
Mitchell Kois
From: Erik Hodge <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Facilities for the Unhoused with Severe Mental Crises at 413/825 Ocean Ave

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Honorable Members of the City Council, and City Manager Chi, My name is Erik Hodge and I am a resident of Santa Monica, along with my children, Lleyton (age 4), Belle (age 2) and my wife (pregnant with baby number 3).

I am writing to express my sincerest support for Mayor Negrete who has brought to light the nontransparent nature in which two facilities for the severely mentally ill were approved near schools, senior centers, and parks without any publicly available impact analyses, stakeholder notification, or community input per Welfare and Institutions Code §5604.2(a)(4)). I stand with my fellow Santa Monicans to request a suspension of the facilities at 413 Ocean Ave and 825 Ocean Ave until all six elements in Mayor Negrete’s memo are complete and publicly posted, particularly Item #6, which asks for a citywide comprehensive and transparent site review process for such facilities.

While tonight’s item appears to be only relevant to the two addresses above, this issue has citywide implications as it demonstrates that our city lacks a process to expend taxpayer funds in compliance with state law and the spirit of our City’s Strategic Plan on Homelessness, which require community and professional involvement at every stage.

By calling for clarity on zoning, transparency in developer practices, and robust public outreach, Mayor Negrete is not creating barriers to progress—she is building trust, ensuring that our city’scompassion is matched by competence in every single neighborhood across this city. This approach strengthens our collective ability to help people heal, stabilize, and reintegrate into the community.

A community that truly cares about its most vulnerable must also care deeply about how decisions are made, how funds are spent, and how every stakeholder is treated. Los Angeles County should not be driving decisions that impact all of our communities without accountability, and thus, we simultaneously call on Third District LA County Supervisor Lindsay Horvath to intervene – to both pause funding for these projects and support Mayor Negrete’s detailed request.

Sincerely,
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
359
Erik Hodge
226 Palisades Ave
Santa Monica, Ca 90402
310 779 2360
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
360
Mitchell Kois
From: Alex amirkhanian <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:10 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected] Subject: Homeless Shelter 413 Ocean ave.

EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed homeless shelter at 413 Ocean Ave. and 825 Ocean. While I understand the importance of addressing homelessness in our community, I believe this location is unsuitable for such a facility, and I respectfully urge the council to reconsider this proposal.

My primary concerns include:

1. Impact on Neighborhood Safety and Quality of Life: The proposed location is in close proximity to residential areas, schools, and local businesses. Increased foot traffic and potential loitering could create safety concerns for residents and visitors, particularly families with young children.

2. Lack of Community Input: Many residents feel that there has been insufficient transparency and engagement with the community regarding this proposal. A project of this magnitude requires thorough consultation with those who will be directly affected.

3. Alternative Locations: There may be more suitable locations for a homeless shelter that are less disruptive to residential and commercial areas, such as sites with better access to public transportation and existing social services.

I strongly support efforts to provide compassionate solutions for homelessness, but these efforts must balance the needs of all community members. I respectfully request that the city council explore alternative locations and engage in further dialogue with residents to address these concerns.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I urge you to prioritize the well-being of our neighborhood and reconsider the placement of the shelter at 413 Ocean Ave. I look forward to attending any public hearings on this matter and contributing to a constructive discussion.

Sincerely,
Alex Amirkhanian
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
361
Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 8:04 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Facilities for the Unhoused with Severe Mental Crises at 413/825 Ocean Ave

EXTERNAL
To the Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council — As a homeowner and parent of young children in the neighborhood, I’m wriƟng to express my concern about the process by which approvals were granted for the new housing faciliƟes on Ocean Avenue which have become an important topic of conversaƟon over the past week.

My understanding is that proper protocols to seek input from the community about these faciliƟes may not have been followed. I would therefore urge you to immediately pause whatever approvals have been given which are allowing the opening process for the faciliƟes to conƟnue, so that a proper invesƟgaƟon of what happened can be conducted.

It seems to me that there are enough quesƟon marks that exist about the approval process and severe concern on the part of residents, business owners, and schools in the area of the faciliƟes should they indeed be opened that this would be the most prudent course of acƟon.

Many thanks for your consideraƟon of my posiƟon of this maƩer.

Doug Scherrer
203 20th Street in Santa Monica
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
362
Mitchell Kois
From: warren brand <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 7:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Support for Mayor Negrete’s Agenda Item 16 and a Request to Delay Opening of Shelters for the Severely Mentally Ill at 413/825 Ocean Ave

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the process by which approvals and funding were secured for the two proposed mental health housing facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue. During the community town hall held on Thursday, October 9th, reps from the LA County Department of Mental Health confirmed that these facilities will not require background checks or sobriety. These policies raise serious safety and accountability concerns for nearby residents.

At the same time, I want to express my full support for Mayor Lana Negrete’s leadership and her recent memo calling for transparency and accountability surrounding these projects. Her call for clarity reflects the type of leadership Santa Monica needs at this critical time.

As a resident living next door to one of these sites, I can personally attest to the ongoing challenges in our neighborhood. We already experience frequent disturbances in the alleys and surrounding streets due to unhoused individuals. There have been repeated incidents of thefts and people sleeping or bathing in shared residential amenities such as our pool and jacuzzi. Our building is home to many seniors and families with young children, and these conditions already create a sense of vulnerability and unease.

Our community cares deeply about helping those who are struggling with homelessness and mental illness. However, these facilities are being placed in areas surrounded by senior housing, preschools, and elementary schools, all within a half-mile radius. Placing such facilities in dense residential and tourism-heavy zones, rather than near major transit lines in commercial or industrial areas, presents significant challenges for both the residents of the facilities and the surrounding community The Ocean Avenue and Palisades Park area plays a vital role in Santa Monica’s economy, supporting small businesses, schools, senior facilities, and tourism. The revenue generated here helps sustain essential city services at a time when our finances are already strained. It is critical that decisions of this magnitude are made with care, foresight, and full transparency.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the City Council to pause the opening of the 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue facilities until all due diligence has been completed and public hearings have been held.

Moving forward without proper review, impact studies, or open community discussion would undermine public trust and risk the safety and stability of both residents and future program participants. A temporary pause is a responsible and necessary step to ensure that Santa Monica approaches this issue thoughtfully and in accordance with its own standards for community engagement.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
363
Finally, I ask that the Council uphold the values outlined in Santa Monica’s Homelessness Strategic Plan, which begins with a commitment to transparency:
“We strive to communicate clearly and openly, sharing our intentions, decisions, and results to foster the trust of our community.”
The plan also commits to “promote the wellbeing of all,” yet that principle was not followed in the case of 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue. Our city deserves a process that honors those words through open dialogue, data-driven decisions, and respect for all stakeholders.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering this important matter with the seriousness and care it deserves.

Sincerely,
Warren Brand
Resident
Ocean Ave. Santa Monica
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
364
Mitchell Kois
From: Laura Marcus <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 7:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Item 16-Negrete

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am wriƟng to express my deep concern and disappointment over the manner in which the Los Angeles County Department of mental health advanced the voluntary entry/exit faciliƟes at 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue for the unhoused and severely mentally ill without prior public noƟce or community engagement.

As City of Santa Monica Mayor Lana Negrete made clear in her October 9, 2025 memo to the Santa Monica City Manager, even the city of Santa Monica was “recently made aware“ of the counƟes acƟons aŌer funding and have been approved and renovaƟons were already underway. Residence were blindsided, leŌ to discover this project through rumor rather than proper noƟficaƟon. This was not a clerical error– – it was a profound failure of transparency.

The Mayor’s memo further highlights that the county and its nonprofit partners neglected to comply with welfare and instrucƟons code. §5604.2(a)(4), which explicitly requires ciƟzen and professional involvement at all stages of the planning process. That includes residence, local businesses, schools, and those directly impacted by such faciliƟes. None of these stakeholders were given that opportunity.

Instead, this project was quietly advanced without consideraƟon of the preschools, elementary schools, senior, living faciliƟes, and impacts on the ciƟes, tourism hub that generates millions in revenue for a city already under fiscal strain.

The secretary surrounding this process has eroded public trust and undermine the very principles of open governance you have publicly Champion.

While LA County and St. Joseph Center’s newly released FAQ aƩempts to assure the public that the site will provide “24/7 staffing“ and “enhanced security,“ it is evident there is no coordinated plan to provide safety beyond the walls of these faciliƟes, as discussed at the October 9th Town Hall, where the LA County DMH, and St. Joseph’s presented.

Transparency aŌer the fact is not transparency – – it’s damage control.

In addiƟon, on page 5 of the city of Santa Monica‘s homelessness strategic plan one of the first stated values of the plan is to be transparent. I quote: “Transparency. We strive to communicate clearly and openly, sharing our intenƟons, decisions, and results to the foster the trust of our community.” The mission statement of the strategic plan also claims to “promote the well-being of all“, but that clearly was not followed as we have outlines.

The people of Santa Monica are not opposed to providing mental healthcare or supporƟve housing. We are opposed to being cut out of decisions that so profoundly affect our children, elderly, neighborhoods, schools, small businesses, safety, and economic stability. you owe this community an explanaƟon and must put a pause to the opening of these faciliƟes unƟl proper due diligence is completed in a public forum that is in compliance with the law.

We urge you to pause the opening of the mental health faciliƟes at 413 Ocean Avenue and 825 Ocean Avenue and launch an invesƟgaƟon into the approach that was taken to approve these faciliƟes,, and sites unƟl a full review is conducted with full transparency and meaningful public engagement.

Sincerely,
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
365
Laura Marcus
Wilmot Neighborhood
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
366
Mitchell Kois
From: Esther Cameron <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 7:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16B-Negrete

EXTERNAL
I oppose this non-transparent process and LA County Supervisor Lindsay Horvath's plan to open a 49 bed facility for the Severely Mentally Ill at 413 and 825 Ocean Ave.

Esther Cameron
909 Arizona Ave. #1
Santa Monica CA 90401
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
367
Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 7:44 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 16B-Negrete

EXTERNAL
Hi,
This bill is highly unacceptable and I vehemently oppose. We don’t need more mental health faciliƟes in Santa Monica where we walk our dogs and babies and already have to worry about our safety with all the homeless and mentally ill.

I was walking today with my newborn and was almost assaulted by a mentally ill individual. I called 911 immediately. As a mother alone with a newborn I felt unsafe and scared for the life of my child. We do not need more of these types of people in Santa Monica.

This is completely outrageous and not what Santa Monica needs. I am a taxpayer here and we should have had a say in this. Absolutely disgraceful.

Thanks,
Lauren Kolodny
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
368
Mitchell Kois
From: Jenni Pfaff <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 7:34 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 16B-Negrete

EXTERNAL
Hi City CouncilI have never reached out before, but this topic is too important for me to sit quietly. Please please please help the residents of Santa Monica. I absolutely oppose the non-transparent process and LA County Supervisor Lindsay Horvath's plan to open a 49 bed facility for the severely mentally ill at 413 and 825 Ocean Ave. How and why could this happen? This is our beautiful, special community where we walk safely with our children. This is unacceptable.

Please take this seriously.

Jenni Pfaff
Santa Monica, CA resident.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
369
Mitchell Kois
From: Matt Held <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 7:23 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Lauren Kolodny Held; Santa Monicans United
Subject: Item 16B-Negrete

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I strongly oppose this bill, project, non-transparent process and LA County Supervisor Lindsay Horvath’s Plan to open a 49 Bed facility for the Severely Mentally Ill at 413 and 825 Ocean Ave.

I live about a mile away (900 block of Arizona Ave, 90401), but walk through the park regularly with my dog and baby in a stroller.

This is blatantly illegal and a violation of every persons right to peace and quiet enjoyment of a public area. These mentally sick people ruin the city and make walking around extremely dangerous. I witness this every day a block away from my home at reed park where there are needle exchanges. In fact, today a couple with a stroller was chased by a lunatic homeless person and yelling for help - check the police record if you don’t believe me.

What this proposal is attempting to do is beyond illegal and myself and a coalition of local Santa Monicans plan on suing the city, county, council members, and primarily the county supervisor.

What yall are doing in unacceptable and you will not proceed.

I look forward to our day in court if you decide to pursue disgusting plan without proper disclosure, discussion and voting by local representatives.

Sincerely,
Matt Held
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
370
Mitchell Kois
From: Valerie Rokhlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 7:16 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Item 16B Support

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to strongly urge you to support item 16B and our legal, due process rights under SB326.

We have organized hundreds of people in days, soon it will be thousands, and we are all deeply concerned about the planned opening of the homeless shelter on Ocean Avenue intended to serve seriously mentally ill, drug addicted and homeless individuals.

The Good Neighbor Policy requirement (via SB326) was not followed and is a clear violation of our due process rights.

The first public discussion on this topic took place Thursday, October 9th during a NOMA informational zoom meeting. However, it was clear the intention of St. Joseph’s and LA County was to open the facility illegally and without notice, community input. More so, fully formed operational polices or adequate safety measures to protect the surrounding neighborhood were not and have not been presented or accepted.

Furthermore, I am concerned to have learned from St. Joseph’s that individuals in this shelter will not be subject to drug testing or complete background checks, yet they will be permitted to exit and and enter the facility and community freely during the day. This poses significant risks to our community, especially given the proximity of THREE elementary schools, community parks and local residents. Additionally, it was suggested that others looking for homeless services would benefit from outreach being conducted in the surrounding area, effectively putting more homeless, mentally ill and drug addicts in the neighborhood. You are not simply housing 49 people you are a beacon to everyone looking for homeless services.

It is clear your security plan beyond the shelter is not complete or adequate. The reputation of your owner and “partner” in this facility has been called into question with reporting by the LA Times.

Simply accepting the risk and responsibility for approving this location is not acceptable. The introduction of such a facility without consideration of our legal, due process rights is dangerous.

It is your responsibility to prioritize the safety of your current community members, especially the many children who attend the impacted schools.

Protect our neighborhood, vote yes for item 16B to support transparency and our due process rights.

I look forward to your response and or support for item 16B.

Sincerely,
Valerie Rokhlin
834 4th St, Apt 103, Santa Monica CA, 90403
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
371
Mitchell Kois
From: Chris Lapierre <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 7:11 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16B Support