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

Our community supports compassionate, accountable care that promotes the well-being of the entire city and county. While this letter appears to only be relevant to the two addresses above, this issue has citywide implications as it demonstrates that our county and city lack 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 with a mission for success – particularly as our city faces significant financial shortfalls.

The County should not be able to fund and approve facilities in our city without following proper notification and input required, per state law. 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 missions in the City’s Homelessness Strategic Plan. The County and City must work collaboratively with stakeholders across our entire city – including those from Sunset Park, Pico Blvd, and the Palisades Park Community – to ensure transparency, collaboration, and accountability.

In conclusion, we respectfully request that you pause the opening of the facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean, reopen the approvals and analysis of these projects, and support the completion of all six points in Mayor Negrete’s memo associated with Item 16-B. Thank you to Mayor Negrete for bringing this important issue to our attention, and to all of you for your service to our city and for considering this important item.

Sincerely,
Max Friedman
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
34 The Wilmont Neighborhood
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
35 Mitchell Kois
From: Zac Baldwin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:13 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 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

EXTERNAL
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.

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 Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
36 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 and ignored by either her or people in her staff. The action of building these facilities without permits is outrageous and illegal. 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.

Best,
Melanie Wise
Santa Monican
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
37 Mitchell Kois
From: Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 16-B - OPPOSE MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FACILITY IN NOMA

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed homeless shelter/mental health facility on Ocean Ave.

There were 300 or more people, including many Santa Monica city council members, at the recent NOMA zoom meeting and there was wide and vocal opposition to this location. Everyone supports finding housing for those who are unhoused and providing treatment for individuals with mental health and substance use disorders. However, the location is NOT acceptable.

Our children and our families are STRONGLY opposed to putting a mental health and drug treatment program in our residential community, across the street from one of the only parks in NOMA and within

0.5 miles of three elementary schools.

Please do everything possible to find an alternative location for this facility.

Thank you,
Matt Goldenberg
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
38 Mitchell Kois
From: Ellie Farbstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 5:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Council meeting item 16B

EXTERNAL
Dear council members
I am a very longƟme resident and voter in NOMA part of Santa Monica. I fully support all of the proposals put forth in ITEM 16B.

I am against the opening of the mental health faciliƟes on Ocean Ave and believe them to be illegal for the zoning without special permits.

Listen to the folks whom you represent please.

Sincerely
Ellen Farbstein
Sent from my liƩle iPhone
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
39 Mitchell Kois
From: Dina Klausner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 5:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; [email protected]; [email protected]; Council Mailbox Subject: Re: Request to Suspend Approval and Funding of Facilities 413 & 825 Ocean Ave

EXTERNAL
The Honorable Lindsey P. Horvath
Los Angeles County Supervisor, Third District
500 West Temple Street, Room 866
Los Angeles, CA 90012
[Sent via
email: [email protected]; [email protected]; lana.negrete@santam onica.gov; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan.Hall@santam onica.gov; [email protected]; [email protected]; Natalya.Zernitskaya@s antamonica.gov; [email protected]]
Re: Request to Suspend Approval and Funding of Facilities413 & 825 Ocean Ave in Santa Monica, CA Due to Noncompliance with State Law and City Plans

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.

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.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
40 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.

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 as we have outlined.

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,
Dina Klausner
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
41 Mitchell Kois
From: Erika Shay <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:43 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-Negrete

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
Empirical evidence of crime increases around similar facilities 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.

That same study noted that crime impact is highly localized to within ~400 meters (2–3 block radius).

Although not exactly the same as a full-time supportive housing facility, these results show how proximity shelters can attract opportunistic crime.

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).

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.

Routine Activity theory / criminology logic
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.

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.

Evidence is mixed — we cannot assume “no harm”
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.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
42 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.

Hence, proponents rely on weak “no effect” conclusions — but we are not in a position to gamble on worst-case externalities.

Safety for women and vulnerable neighbors is especially at risk As a woman, my fear is not abstract. Panic, harassment, confrontations, late-night break-ins, disorder — these escalate quickly in transitional populations and under-resourced security.

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,
Erika Shay
Sources:
https://www.santamonica.gov/crime-statistics
https://www.santamonica.gov/topic-explainers/crime-reports-and-statistics https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/santa-monica/crime https://www.areavibes.com/santa+monica-ca/crime
https://smdp.com
https://ucr.fbi.gov
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
43 https://www.crimemapping.com
https://furmancenter.org/files/publications/A3ImpactofSHonNeighborhoods_000.pdf https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/Ridgeway_Effect%20of%20Emergency%20Sheltersv5_1.2.2018.pdf https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6659163
This email contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive communications on behalf of the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone this email or any information contained in or attached to this email. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the email.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
44 Mitchell Kois
From: San Vicente Villas <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:42 PM
To: Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Ocean Avenue Homeless Housing

EXTERNAL
To the Mayor, City Manager, and Members of the City Council, I strongly oppose the proposed placement of homeless facilities in our neighborhood. This plan is ill-conceived and deeply concerning. Our community already faces increased crime and vagrancy since 2020, and introducing such a facility here would only worsen these issues.

Residents in this area contribute among the highest property taxes in the City, and we deserve responsible, balanced urban planning. There are numerous vacant or underutilized commercial properties along Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards that would be far more appropriate locations for such a facility.

Why, then, is oceanfront property—directly across from one of the few clean and peaceful sections of Palisades Park—being targeted for this purpose? It defies both logic and fairness.

We implore you, as our elected representatives, to reject this plan and protect the character, safety, and livability of our neighborhood.

Respectfully,
Bettina Kaplan
San Vicente Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
45 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Subject: SM City Council Meeting - 10/14/2025 - Item 16B

EXTERNAL
It is extremely disturbing that we are only learning of the plan for opening of two supportive housing facilities for the severely mentally ill on Ocean avenue when they are within weeks of opening. While I agree that we desperately need facilities to deal with mentally ill homeless people, it is ridiculous that they are being put in a residential neighborhood near a K-12 school and businesses and a beautiful park that caters to tourists. Hearing that these facilities are not licensed for mental health care and what scrutiny comes from that and that residents will be free to come and go during the day is impossible to understand.

Based on comments made by county oƯicials, it seems that some Santa Monica city oƯicials were informed of this and decided to keep it secret as, it seems, the names of those people are being kept secret. The community has been kept in the dark and It feels like something is “rotten in the state of Denmark”.

Please take whatever action is necessary to uncover and correct what went wrong here. For the future of our city, we need to preserve welcoming and safe environments for residents, children, schools, businesses, and tourists.

Mentally ill people cannot be allowed to roam freely in our neighborhoods. This isn’t fair for them or for us or for the future of our community.

Thank you for your attention to this.

Cathy Tryon
30 year resident of Santa Monica
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
46 Mitchell Kois
From: Jay Sloofman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:25 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Adrian McMeans; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Proposed Homeless/Mental Health Facility 413/425 Ocean Ave

EXTERNAL
The opening of a homeless shelter for individuals with mental illness at 413/425 Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica is a disasterious idea for the community. The proposed locaƟon is alarmingly at the heart of residenƟal neighborhoods, an elementary school, and Palisades Park. This proximity raises safety concerns for all, especially children and elderly residents.

The proposed site is near a protected green space that serves as a vital ecological and recreaƟonal asset for the community. This facility will negaƟvely impact the safety and enjoyment of the area.

I urge the decision-makers to consider alternaƟve sites that are beƩer suited for a homeless/mental illness facility.

LocaƟons further from dense residenƟal areas and sensiƟve environmental zones should be prioriƟzed.

While the establishment of a facility like this is undoubtedly essenƟal, it is crucial to choose a locaƟon that respects the needs and concerns of the community it serves.

H. Jay Sloofman
516 San Vicente Blvd.

Unit 307
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
47 Mitchell Kois
From: Jon Farzam <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:22 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
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.

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.

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.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
48 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.
cc: Third District Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath Sincerely,
Jon Farzam
Chief Executive Officer
Shore Hotel | Santa Monica Hotel | Ocean View Hotel
D 310.656.4530
E [email protected]
A 1515 Ocean Ave. Santa Monica, CA 90401
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

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

Santa Monica Hotel Logo
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Ocean View Hotel Logo
PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS 2510-2521 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT THIS TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED

RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, PHOTOCOPYING OR DISTRIBUTION OF THESE CONTENTS IS UNAUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED BY LAW. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS IN ERROR, NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AND DESTROY ALL COPIES THEREIN! Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
49 Mitchell Kois
From: Catherine Enderton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:07 PM
To: Oliver Chi; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Subject: Mental Health Facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue

EXTERNAL
I'm a long time resident of Santa Monica living near this proposed project. I strongly object to the locations of the mental health housing facilities.

The locations are across from most popular park in Santa Monica which residents and tourists used to enjoy and still try to enjoy. The project encourages mentally ill people to be in close proximity to many children, elderly and tourists. Since they are severely mentally ill the chances of problem behaviors is very high. The people managing them will try to prevent potentially traumatizing incidents from occurring but they have no ability to prevent the mentally ill residents from using the park, being around the children, elderly and tourists.

I feel it's too risky. A better location should be found.

Catherine Enderton, Ph.D.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Ben Delbick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:57 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Pause Approvals for the Mental Health Facilities 413/825 Ocean Ave in Santa Monica and Require a New Process that Follows State Law and the City’s Strategic Pl Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Supervisor Horvath, Mayor Negrete, Honorable Members of the City Council, and City Manager Chi, I am writing to express concern about the County’s non-transparent process in which two facilities for the severely mentally ill and unhoused were approved in our city 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)). According to the LA County Department of Mental Health, there are no background checks or sobriety requirements at this facility, which allows for voluntary entry/exit without any plan for care, supervision, or enforcement once an individual leaves the premises. I stand with my fellow Santa Monicans to request the County work with the City of Santa Monica to suspend approvals for the facilities at 413 Ocean Ave and 825 Ocean Ave and to launch a new process that is in compliance with all laws governing public participation, and that address the six elements in Mayor Negrete’s memo
(https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=19244&MeetingID=1454).

Sincerely,
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
2 Ben Delbick
Sawtelle
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Thea Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox Subject: Item 16 - Mental Health Facility on Ocean ave
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
I oppose the properties at 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue being used as mental housing facilities, especially considering the history of the owner, Pustilnikov, and his shady businesses dealings. If it is true that this area is zoned residential and therefore cannot legally provide on-site medical or psychiatric care, meaning no doctors, no nurses, and no therapists then this is not a true treatment facility, but just housing with security guards, with the ability for the patients to come and go as they please. This is not how we should be treating the mentally challenged. Please do what you can to stop this owner from causing a nightmare for our residents, police force, and medical responders.

Thank you,
Thea Phillips
310.387.5661
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: Bonnie BlueSkies <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:48 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Mental health facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
cc: Mayor Lana Negrete
Re: Homeless Mental Health Facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean Avenue, Santa Monica I have been a Santa Monica resident for more than 40 years.

I have lived in the North of Montana neighborhood for more than 30 years.

I attended the NOMA meeting last week and learned about the above issue. I’m baffled that the City government appears to be surprised that the facility is so far along—and that we, who live in this neighborhood, were not consulted or informed. What a shining example of Santa Monica’s apparent dysfunctional government.

The City of Santa Monica has already proven its willingness to ignore mental illness, at great cost to all of our citizens. How much of our collective tax money has been spent on trying to financially heal people who were permanently damaged by Uller, a Santa Monica-sponsored pedophile? $230 million? With more to be paid in the future? And how do these payments affect the rest of our city? I am speechless that you are willing to go down this road again.

It’s horrific enough that numerous people tried to bring the danger of the pedophile to the City of Santa Monica and were dismissed. It is horrific that it was allowed to go on so long—for decades.

The City of Santa Monica is now internationally famous for ignoring pedophilia. News articles about it have circulated all over the world. An abundance of detailed information is available to anyone on the internet. If I had known about this, I would not have bought my house in Santa Monica in 1995.

I certainly would not have come to Santa Monica as a tourist.

And I would never have raised a child here. Absolutely not.

It is an outrage to every citizen in Santa Monica and beyond that you are willing to now approve placing a facility for mentally ill people in that particular location—where in one minute, a facility resident can do staggering damage to an individual, a group, and torpedo our entire city—again.

This isn’t rocket science, people.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
5 I have always loved Santa Monica, and I have given a great deal of time and money to our public schools. I’ve been happy and proud to do so. I was floored when I recently discovered the negligence of city officials who should have been paying attention and earning our trust. You can’t expect the people of Santa Monica to keep supporting you and paying our taxes when you are so thoughtless about our safety.

Please note that my objection is not about a halfway house for drug/alcohol addiction nor is it about housing the homeless. It is about housing mentally ill people in an area populated by children.

I promise that if this is approved, I will not vote for any of you again. I will also make sure that others are aware of your irresponsibility with regard to mental illness and our children. And I am unequivocably a lifelong democrat.

Your job is to make Santa Monica safe. And you are failing miserably.

Surely you know that pedophilia is in the national and international spotlight right now. If people were not aware of it, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell made sure that everyone in Santa Monica knows about it now. Placing a mental health facility in that particular location is outrageous.

I urge you to take whatever measures are necessary to move the facility to a place that is not frequented by children.

You know better.

We all do.

Respectfully,
Bonnie Verburg
[email protected]
NOMA resident since 1995
Santa Monica resident since 1979
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
6 Mitchell Kois
From: Lilly Wilen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:48 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Council agenda item 16B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I recently became aware that LA County and St. Joseph Center intend to establish mental health housing and treatment facilities at 825 and 413 Ocean Avenue in the next month or so.

This announcement was shared with the community only a few days ago, leaving residents with very limited time to understand the plans and their potential implications.

Such a significant development warrants open communication and meaningful community engagement well in advance. It’s troubling that this information was not provided earlier, giving the impression that public input is not being valued.

I respectfully ask the Santa Monica City Council to do whatever is in its power (including making a direct appeal to LA County) to pause implementation of these projects to allow sufficient time for the community to review the details, express perspectives, and thoughtfully prepare for the changes that may affect our neighborhood and Palisades Park, which is right across the street.

Thank you,
Lilly Wilen
[email protected]
Santa Monica resident
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
7 Mitchell Kois
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 16.B. PAUSE Ocean Ave Facility.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I support our Mayor’s request and ask that you act NOW to learn more before people are moved into 413 & 825 Ocean Ave.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
8 Mitchell Kois
From: Jaqlyn Flesch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:35 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Keep Our Children Safe in Santa Monica
Attachments: 413_825 Ocean Ave Letter to County Supervisor Horvath.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
--
Jaqlyn G. Flesch
Associate Marriage Family Therapist (IMF97887)
Yoga & Meditation Instructor
Holistic Health Consultant
Phone: 845-893-4774
Email: [email protected]
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
[Date]
The Honorable Lindsey P. Horvath
Los Angeles County Supervisor, Third District
500 West Temple Street, Room 866
Los Angeles, CA 90012
[Sent via email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]] Re: 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 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.

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.

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 Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
statement of the strategic plan also claims to “promote the wellbeing of all”, but that clearly was not followed as we have outlined.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address or Neighborhood]
[Optional: Email / Phone]
cc: City of Santa Monica Mayor Lana Negrete
City Council Members, City of Santa Monica
Oliver Chi, City Manager, City of Santa Monica
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
9 Mitchell Kois
From: Hannah Wilen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Council Mailbox Subject: Council agenda item 16.B.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I understand that LA County and St. Joseph Center will be placing mental health housing and treatment facilities at 825 and 413 Ocean Avenue in the very near future.

The community was only informed about this a few days ago.

It is simply not enough time for the community to discuss, voice our opinion, and prepare. It is improper for the county to have kept this information from us.

Please urge the county to delay the creation of these centers for a period long enough for the community to react by reviewing the plans, voicing opinions, and making other arrangements to prepare for the impact on our community and the park across the street.

Thank you,
Hannah Wilen
Resident of Santa Monica
[email protected]
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
10 Mitchell Kois
From: Barry Wilen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:20 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda item 16.B. - New Mental Health Facilities on Ocean Avenue Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please take action to try to pause the implementation of the two mental heath faculties to be placed at the above addresses in Santa Monica.

The city of Santa Monica, its residents, and its businesses were only made aware of the plans for these facilities a few days ago. We need an appropriate amount of time to allow for review of the plans. If such facilities are implemented, we must assess the impact on our community and prepare accordingly.

Please urge the county or take any other available city action to delay the opening of these facilities to give the community a chance to review the plans, express opinions, make security and other recommendations, and take any other action as they see fit.

Thank you,
Barry Wilen, M.D.

Santa Monica resident
[email protected]
424-234-3764
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
11 Mitchell Kois
From: Anne Saldo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

Proceeding sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods, eroding residents’ trust in local government, and further exhausting our already strained city resources.

Sincerely,
Anne & Gerald Saldo
1004 Wilson Pl
SM CA 90405
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Barbara Eskowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 4:50 PM
To: 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
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my opposition to the process in which the facilities for the severely mentally ill were approved with taxpayer funds at 413 and 825 Ocean Ave.

I also share my heartfelt support for Mayor Lana Negrete’s leadership in addressing one of the most complex and sensitive challenges facing our community—how best to care for individuals living with severe mental illness and homelessness, while ensuring that our policies remain transparent, inclusive, and grounded in sound public process.

Mayor Negrete’s October 9 memorandum reflects a thoughtful and compassionate approach to public service. Her acknowledgment of the urgent need for behavioral health housing, coupled with her insistence on due diligence, community engagement, and transparency, embodies the balanced leadership Santa Monica deserves.

This issue is not about opposing care—it is about ensuring that care is delivered responsibly, safely, and with dignity for those it is meant to serve. 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.

Her emphasis on compliance with Welfare & Institutions Code §5604.2(a)(4))—which require citizen and professional involvement at every stage of planning—honors both the spirit and the letter of these laws. 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 and respected. Given the facilities’ close proximity to several senior living facilities, preschools, and elementary schools, the lack of a general community safety plan and/or early notification is grossly negligent.

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. This approach strengthens our collective ability to help people heal, stabilize, and reintegrate into the community.

I stand in full support of Mayor Negrete’s efforts to make Santa Monica a model for both compassionate care and transparent governance.

As such, we hope you support 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,
Barbara Eskowitz
North of Montana
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
2 Mitchell Kois
From: Jim Barnett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 4:17 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Letter Supporting Mayor's Actions
Attachments: City of SM - Item 16-B - Support for Mayor .pdf

EXTERNAL
Attached please find a letter regarding the Mayor's actions.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
October 14, 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: 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, City Manager Chi, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my opposition to the process in which the facilities for the severely mentally ill were approved with taxpayer funds at 413 and 825 Ocean Ave.

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. This approach strengthens our collective ability to help people heal, stabilize, and reintegrate into the community.

I stand in full support of Mayor Negrete’s efforts to make Santa Monica a model for both compassionate care and transparent governance.

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
As such, we hope you support 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,
James Barnett
701 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, CA
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Stone <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 4:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Mental health facilities at 413 and 825 Ocean Ave

EXTERNAL
Please don’t allow these facilities in this neighborhood.

Nancy Stone
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: Zach Friedland <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 4:09 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [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

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
5 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,
Zach Friedland
Resident & Parent of Children in nearby school
cc: Third District Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath --
Zach Friedland
[email protected]
(646) 339-3165
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
6 Mitchell Kois
From: Planning Commission Comments
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 2:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: STOP BUILDING IN OCEAN PARK
-----Original Message-----
From: Planning <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 1:16 PM
To: Planning Commission Comments <[email protected]> Subject: FW: STOP BUILDING IN OCEAN PARK
-----Original Message-----
From: Robyn Nissim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:00 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: STOP BUILDING IN OCEAN PARK

EXTERNAL
Please shut this down. Ocean park is crowded enough and the last thing we need is more buildings and mulƟdweling units. You are destroying the neighborhood and contribuƟng to over crowding.

Stop building here. Stop pretending you’re creaƟng something affordable. You’re just destroying the neighborhood and have built enough in Santa Monica.

When is this going to end?!
Where is the data that shows we need more housing? There a thousands of empty units throughout Santa Monica. This is the last thing we need.

Robyn Nissim
A disgruntled tax paying homeowner
Please excuse typos, this message was sent from my iPhone 긕긖긗긘긙긔긚 Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
7 Mitchell Kois
From: Rachael Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 2:36 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16B Support for Negrete

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am wriƟng 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 violaƟon of our due process rights.

The first public discussion on this topic took place Thursday, October 9th during a NOMA informaƟonal zoom meeƟng.

However, it was clear the intenƟon of St. Joseph’s and LA County was to open the facility illegally and without noƟce, community input. More so, fully formed operaƟonal 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 Ɵmeline 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 violaƟng our rights.

Furthermore, I am concerned to have learned from St. Joseph’s that individuals in this shelter will not be subject to drug tesƟng or complete background checks, yet they will be permiƩed 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. AddiƟonally, it was suggested that others looking for homeless services would benefit from outreach being conducted in the surrounding area, effecƟvely puƫng 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 reputaƟon of your owner and “partner” in this facility has been quesƟoned due to quesƟonable acƟons/decisions operaƟng similar faciliƟes.

Simply accepƟng the risk and responsibility for approving this locaƟon is not acceptable. The introducƟon of such a facility without consideraƟon of our legal, due process rights is dangerous.

It is your responsibility to prioriƟze the safety of your current community members, especially the many children who aƩend 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,
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
8 Rachael MarƟn
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
9 Mitchell Kois
From: Amy Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 2:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete,
I am a member of NOMA and I am thrilled to hear about the mental health care facilities being created on Ocean Avenue. I am in full support. These are exactly the type of resources that our community desperately needs - and frequently demands - to help address both the homelessness and mental health crises. At last, an opportunity to provide care and support to folks that many of us are uncomfortable or unsure of how to help.

I agree that members of the public should be made aware of these facilities ONCE THEY BEGIN CONSTRUCTION. It's a chance to take pride in the investments being made to address the crises. As I understand it, there are no discretionary approvals required for projects of this sort. It would be deceptive to hold public meetings or public hearings that suggest to community members that they have a say in the approval of these projects.

A thorough report from City staff about the types of services being provided, funding and operations of the project is a great idea but only after the project is moving forward.

Thanks for considering these thoughts.

Amy Anderson
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
10 Mitchell Kois
From: Lindsey Krebs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 1:15 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: FC M
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
October 14, 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.

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 Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
11 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:

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.

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 Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
12 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.

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,
Fawn Madonia – Homeowner
401 Ocean Ave. Santa Monica, CA
[email protected]
Cc: Lindsey Krebs – Assistant to Fawn Madonia
[email protected]

Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
13 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 12:15 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; [email protected]
Subject: Ocean Avenue Project

EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council et al.,
It’s with a heavy heart that I send this letter, because I completely support the Ocean Avenue project in theory. I believe in compassionate, community-based solutions to our housing crisis, and I want this project to succeed.

But I’ve also seen and personally experienced some of the most well-intentioned county programs fail when they weren’t designed with enough accountability or collaboration.

Before moving forward, there needs to be clear agreements with the community and strong mechanisms for oversight. By rushing this process, you create unnecessary division and leave room for bad actors to exploit the situation. Worse, you risk creating an environment where community members feel alienated, and that hostility will ultimately fall on the residents who move in, not the decision-makers who placed them there.

Santa Monica has worked hard to be a place that values belonging. That’s why it’s so painful to see a project with so much potential being pushed through in a way that makes people feel shut out instead of invited in. This really could be something great, a model for how we welcome and support one another. Imagine if we built relationships instead of resentment: curbside libraries hosted by neighbors, bingo nights at local churches, shared volunteer projects that create connection and understanding. I’ve seen the willingness in the community firsthand.

We can and should be the community that gets this right. But that requires collaboration, not coercion. It’s also deeply unfair that neighboring cities aren’t sharing more of the responsibility, leaving Santa Monica, once again, to act as a funnel for coastal county programs without adequate partnership or balance. Regional coordination and equitable distribution of services are essential to the long-term success of any eƯort meant to provide dignity and stability to those in need.

I hope that the city will pause long enough to ensure this project starts not just with a roof and a plan, but with trust. That’s what will make it last, and make it worthy of the people it’s meant to serve.

With gratitude,
Amy Wiwuga
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
14 Mitchell Kois
From: Susie Johnston <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 12:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Subject: Ocean Ave Facilities

EXTERNAL
To all concerned,
Re: Request for City Council Direction on Community Engagement, Zoning Clarity, and Accountability for LA County and Nonprofit Operated Housing Projects
Recently, the City 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 DO NOT support the intent of establishing these types of facilities at these locations. 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. I DONT BELIEVE OR TRUST THAT STATEMENT ONE BIT.

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

Not in my neighborhood without adequate discussion and ample opportunity to investigate this serious issue!
Sincerely,
Suzanne Johnston
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
15 Longtime resident and home owner in Santa Monica
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025
Item 16-B
October 14, 2025

Santa Monica City CouncilOctober 14, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
October 14, 2025